Search Climate Insights Directory

The document evaluates the Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement to identify effective mechanisms for production controls. It argues that legally binding national targets and a mandatory global target are superior to voluntary commitments. Key recommendations for the plastics treaty include establishing a global production target with a past-year baseline, implementing national phasedown schedules, banning the expansion of production facilities (specifically ethylene plants), and eliminating production subsidies.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should interpret State climate obligations through a harmonized lens of multiple legal frameworks. CIEL contends that while the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are relevant, they do not displace other primary rules such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, or the law of State responsibility. The document asserts that these obligations apply concurrently and that compliance with climate treaties alone does not discharge a State's broader duties under international law, particularly regarding human rights and the protection of the marine environment.

The document asserts that because fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, States' duties to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights necessitate a rapid phase-out of oil, gas, and coal. It argues that due diligence requires States to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include downstream 'Scope 3' emissions, regardless of where they occur. Furthermore, it contends that State actions increasing fossil fuel reliance are presumptively contrary to international law and that the precautionary principle obliges States to prioritize proven emission reductions over speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage.

The document asserts that high-emitting States have breached international obligations to prevent significant transboundary harm and protect human rights by allowing cumulative greenhouse gas emissions to degrade the global climate system. It argues that these breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts under the law of State responsibility, requiring States to cease wrongful conduct and provide full reparation—including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for material and moral injuries. The memorandum emphasizes that international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement do not preclude these reparations and suggests that the burden of proof for causation should shift to responsible States given the available attribution science.

The document asserts that international law provides no basis to restrict State climate obligations to present generations. It argues that the rights of future generations are rooted in the UN Charter, various international environmental agreements, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ and other international bodies. The submission emphasizes that the principles of prevention and precaution require States to act now to avoid irreversible climate harm and warns against relying on speculative future technologies to meet mitigation targets. It includes the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, which provide a framework for the obligations of States and non-State actors to ensure intergenerational justice.

The statement supports the High Commissioner's report on climate change and food security, emphasizing the need to address the 'fossil fuels-agrochemicals nexus'. It argues that synthetic agrochemicals cause soil degradation and biodiversity loss, undermining the right to food and the capacity for carbon sequestration.

The statement emphasizes the necessity of a human rights-based approach to environmental policies, arguing that climate action must be scientifically proven, address root causes like fossil fuel phase-out, and ensure the participation of affected communities—particularly Indigenous Peoples—in the assessment of geoengineering risks. It also warns against the distortion of scientific discourse by vested interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The statement argues that offshore oil and gas activities across their entire lifecycle pose ecological and livelihood risks to small-scale and artisanal fishers, fish workers, and Indigenous communities. It emphasizes that halting offshore fossil fuel expansion is necessary to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and protect ocean-dependent communities. The authors call for the meaningful participation of impacted communities in decision-making and the suspension of offshore projects that deprive fishers of fundamental human rights in favor of a transition to renewable energy.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) supports the Special Rapporteur's findings that 'business as usual is a recipe for climate chaos' and urges states to implement mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence for corporate value chains. CIEL emphasizes that oil, gas, and coal are 'the key drivers of the triple planetary crisis' and calls for the elimination of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it describes as a 'substantial obstacle to effective climate and environmental action'. The statement further advocates for the incorporation of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment into national laws and a proposed legally binding instrument on business and human rights.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the Revised Zero Draft of the Plastics Treaty, arguing that the instrument must include legally binding obligations to control primary plastic polymer production and eliminate hazardous chemicals to be effective. CIEL emphasizes the need for a 'shall' rather than 'should' framework, the inclusion of human rights and health dimensions, and the establishment of a dedicated financial mechanism and a robust transparency framework to ensure accountability and a just transition for affected workers and communities.

The document advocates for rooting climate loss and damage responses in international human rights law, emphasizing the right to remedy. It argues that the World Bank is unfit to lead the Loss and Damage Fund due to its continued fossil fuel investments and failure to provide reparations for project-related harms. The author recommends that the Loss and Damage Fund establish a 'firewall' from World Bank policies, implement independent grievance mechanisms, and prioritize grants-based finance over debt-creating loans, guided by the polluter pays principle.

The document examines how the insistence on consensus-based decision-making in the INC process for a plastic pollution treaty acts as a tool for obstruction, allowing a minority of least ambitious countries to block substantive progress. It contrasts this with other multilateral environmental agreements that include voting provisions to incentivize compromise and avoid deadlock. The brief also details specific procedural tactics used to stall negotiations, such as repeated quorum calls and credential verifications, and warns that without the ability to vote, the final treaty will likely reflect only the lowest common denominator of ambition.

The document asserts that a comprehensive approach to ending plastic pollution must address the entire life cycle, starting from raw material extraction through the production of plastic polymers. It details the chemical processes involved—from feedstocks to monomers and polymerization—and highlights the significant environmental and health risks associated with this production, including greenhouse gas emissions and toxic releases. The brief provides legal and scientific precedents to support the inclusion of production controls in the treaty and recommends specific mechanisms, such as national reduction targets and a moratorium on new production capacity, to effectively reduce the global volume of plastics.

The document outlines best practices for Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) within financial institutions, focusing on ensuring they are accessible, transparent, and effective in providing remedy to communities harmed by investments. It details essential structural elements for independence, such as direct reporting to the Board and restrictions on 'revolving door' employment. The guide defines three core functions: Compliance Review for investigating policy violations, Dispute Resolution for voluntary party-led solutions, and Advisory for systemic institutional learning. It emphasizes the need for simple admissibility requirements, proactive outreach in local languages, and the protection of complainants from retaliation. Finally, it argues that for IAMs to be truly effective, financial institutions must commit to implementing management action plans and establishing dedicated remedy funds.

The document argues that international investment agreements (IIAs) and the ISDS mechanism act as legal barriers to climate action by allowing fossil fuel companies to sue governments for compensation when regulations impact their returns. It outlines a three-part framework for States: removing risk through treaty termination, carveouts, or removal of ISDS clauses; reducing risk via the adoption of 'right to regulate' provisions, interpretative statements, and the careful design of climate measures; and responding to active claims using jurisdictional challenges, the 'necessity defense', and arguments against the 'legitimate expectations' of investors. The toolkit emphasizes that the urgent need to limit warming to 1.5°C may justify the termination of treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) based on a fundamental change of circumstances.

The report argues that COP28 failed to uphold human rights and was subject to corporate capture, resulting in insufficient outcomes on fossil fuel phaseouts and the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund.

The document examines the ecological and human rights risks of various geoengineering approaches, asserting that these speculative technologies could lead to ecosystem collapse and perpetuate neocolonialism.

The document distinguishes between actions a COP can take via decisions—such as guidance, implementation, and budgets—and actions requiring distinct processes like amendments or new protocols, which often take years or decades to ratify. It warns that relying on a general framework to be filled in later with detailed obligations is rarely effective for global agreements. To ensure the efficacy of a future plastics treaty, the author recommends establishing clear voting provisions to avoid the paralysis of default consensus and securing critical obligations in the initial foundation rather than delaying them.

The document compares substantive, hybrid, and framework conventions, arguing that a substantive treaty with clear national obligations is necessary for the future plastics treaty to avoid delays in urgent action.