Essence of International Environmental Law to Address the Effects of Climate Change

Environmental problems are enormous around the world and threaten the global environment. In most cases, these problems are caused by rapid growth of population and poverty. Climate change and sustainable development are inter-linked and are priority issues in the development continuum. Any adverse impact on the environment and biodiversity can cause the restriction of resources and limit available options. Concerted efforts of all the states can bring positive result to address the effects of climate change. Compliance with the treaty provision and sharing of resources and actions among the states can ensure proper utilization of resources and sustainable development.

The ecosystem approach under the Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of decisions of the Conference of the Parties

A comprehensive analysis of the process of formation and development of the ecosystem approach in international environmental law under the Convention on Biological Diversity has been undertaken. Based on a study of the provisions of the Convention and a review of decisions of the meetings of its governing body – the Conference of the Parties – the conclusion is made about the current state of development of the ecosystem approach. In particular, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, general framework of the ecosystem approach have been developed, including its description, principles and practical guidelines for its application, and its leading role in the conservation of biodiversity has been determined. Undoubtedly, the ecosystem approach generally and its principles particularly require thorough discussion at future meetings of the Conference of the Parties and implementation in appropriate decisions. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the effectiveness of this approach in the issue of biodiversity conservation will depend primarily on its implementation in the state environmental policy and legislation of all countries-participants of the Convention and its practical realization, which, according to the author, should become one of the priority and strategic directions in the field of legal regulation of environmental relations in Ukraine.

The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Protection of the Marine Environment

In its 25 years’ history, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has dealt with a number of environmental cases. This has primarily occurred in the context of proceedings relating to the prescription of provisional measures and in advisory proceedings. This article explains how the Tribunal has reaffirmed and developed the basic environmental principles in Part XII of the Law of the Sea Convention, including the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, the precautionary approach, the duty to conduct environmental impact assessments, and the duty to cooperate, as well as the duty of due diligence, thereby contributing to the protection of the marine environment. Part XII of the Convention is a product of the 1970s and its provisions therefore reflect the state of international environmental law at that time. However, the Tribunal has interpreted and applied the aforementioned principles consistently with the contemporary state of international environmental law.

Response-abilities of care in more-than-human worlds

This article rethinks the doctrines of responsibility and protection in international environmental law in light of notions of response-abilities and care in more-than-human worlds. Inspired by the intersecting strands of new materialist, relational and posthuman literatures, and informed by critiques of them by decolonial, indigenous and black scholars, the analysis works with onto-epistemologies of becoming that posit an inseparability of being, knowing and acting with(in) the Anthropocene/s. Through the notion of response-abilities of care, the article reconfigures how the destructive and the restorative relations between humans and nonhumans could be construed beyond a narrow understanding of state sovereignty, territorial jurisdiction, liberal human-centred notions of individuated agency and the strict causal nexus between victim and perpetrator. The analysis concludes by reflecting on how law could remain open to emergent, unfolding and contingent potentialities of entangled human-nonhuman relations, and questions law’s capacity to recognize and respond to the agency and alterity of nonhumans. These configurations exceed the schema of responsibility and protection that organizes even international environmental law’s most progressive theories and practices, such as granting ‘rights to nature’.

Posthuman international law and the rights of nature

Both posthuman theory and the rights of nature (RoN) movement have the potential to challenge the anthropocentrism of international environmental law (IEL). Scholars have begun to document the transformative shifts that could occur through the application of posthuman legal theory to IEL, but these theories have yet to be applied to law in practice. On the other hand, RoN have been applied in domestic law but hardly in international law, while the question of what RoN includes and excludes remains contested. This article brings posthuman theory and RoN together, reflecting on how posthuman legal theory can contribute to the framing of RoN, with a focus on challenging the anthropocentrism of IEL. The article argues, first, that the next step for posthuman legal theory will be its application to existing law. Noting convergences between posthuman legal theory and the rights of nature (RoN), the article contends that those seeking to apply posthuman legal theory might find some interesting alliances by turning to RoN. Second, it is argued that using posthuman theory to frame RoN could help to ensure that RoN live up to their transformative potential.

Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’

<p>The term ‘fisheries management’ at first glance seems to be a reasonably unproblematic one. It implies that firstly, that there are resources called fish, and secondly, that these resources called fish can be harvested and managed. So far, so good. Next, there is the word ‘convention’. It is a commonly understood word in law in general and there are many conventions in International law and in International environmental law as well. Lastly there is the term ‘sustainable development’, a well-used term in International theory and practice, usually said to mean that although we understand the finite nature of the matter and energy that can be safely used by countries to develop, this can be tempered by putting in place measures and instruments to curb the excesses of human, and by that I mean industrialised, human activity on the environment.</p>

Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’

<p>The term ‘fisheries management’ at first glance seems to be a reasonably unproblematic one. It implies that firstly, that there are resources called fish, and secondly, that these resources called fish can be harvested and managed. So far, so good. Next, there is the word ‘convention’. It is a commonly understood word in law in general and there are many conventions in International law and in International environmental law as well. Lastly there is the term ‘sustainable development’, a well-used term in International theory and practice, usually said to mean that although we understand the finite nature of the matter and energy that can be safely used by countries to develop, this can be tempered by putting in place measures and instruments to curb the excesses of human, and by that I mean industrialised, human activity on the environment.</p>

Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>