This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
“An existential threat” – this is how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) characterized climatechange in its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climatechange. 132-139) and the duty to cooperate for environmentalprotection (paras. 74) – states must act urgently.
26 (GC26) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climatechange. Still, the decision holds significant implications for safeguarding children’s rights within the climatechange context and set a foundation for future climate-related cases centered on children.
Despite the ongoing debate on whether ITLOS has jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion on climatechange, if the Tribunal asserts jurisdiction (on jurisdiction, see here and here) , there is still much to uncover. Assuming the ITLOS will assert jurisdiction, this post’s objective is twofold.
The Ecojustice lawyer, acting for Environmental Defence and Oceana, pointed out that the Canadian EnvironmentalProtection Act (CEPA) requires the government to take precautions from hazards, even those that *may* pose a threat to the environment. But it’s not, either. A big nope to that, as well.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s release of its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to ClimateChange marks a watershed moment, not just because of what the court says about climate obligations, but also because of how it says it. As Phoebe Okowa recalls , a handful of large emitters (e.g.
The parties to the London Convention and Protocol have argued that restrictions on ocean CDR are justified given “the precautionary approach outlined in article 3” of the London Protocol. This is consistent with the precautionaryprinciple that underlies much international environmental law.
How would such a legal system work, and could giving rights to nature help in the legal battle against climatechange? The goal of conferring rights to nature is to secure the highest level of environmentalprotection under which an ecosystem can thrive and whose rights are not violated. What are the “Rights of Nature”?
This case was of public interest not only in the Czech Republic and Poland but throughout Europe , as the dispute was part of the conflict between the Polish authorities and the EU institutions on the issue of the rule of law and due to the lack of support by the Polish authorities for the EU’s climate policy.
Climatechange : The process by which the climatechanges due to “forcings”. Often subject to specific environmentalprotections, especially when “endangered” (see above). Forestry and landscape sustainability : Forestry and landscape represent some of the oldest environmentalprotection laws in the world.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for ClimateChange Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE # 126. and non-U.S. Supreme Court. 17-1258 (D.C.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for ClimateChange Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE #130: FEATURED CASE. and non-U.S. Chao , No.
Trump as their 45th President – a man who famously described climatechange as “ created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. Critically, while he is most vocal against climatechange he is no strong supporter of environmental policy in general. manufacturing non-competitive.” And finally, George W.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content