Category Archives: Environmental Law

Investment Arbitration and International Climate Change Law

Climate Change Law, International Arbitration, Public International Law

This post is based on my recent monograph Investment Arbitration and International Climate Change Law: Revaluing Legitimate Expectations, published by Wolters Kluwer, constituting an original contribution to the fields of international arbitration, international investment law, and environmental law. The book, which is based on my Ph.D. dissertation at the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University London, under the supervision of Professor Brekoulakis and Dr. Remy Gerbay, defends the idea that international investment treaties, such as the Energy Charter Treaty, do not thwart the net zero transition or the pursuit of climate policies. Rather, it demonstrates that international investment treaties can enforce climate change commitments and that international climate change law (ICCL) can directly impact the level of protection enjoyed by energy investors under investment treaties.

Intertwining Human Rights and Energy Justice to Obtain a Social License to Operate in the Era of Energy Transition

Climate Change Law, Human Rights

My latest co-authored research has been published as a chapter in in The Palgrave Handbook of Social License to Operate and Energy Transitions, examines the concept of a Social License to Operate (SLO) as a dynamic interaction between industry stakeholders and local communities in the context of energy transitions and climate change. It explores how the principles of energy justice—distributive, procedural, recognition, and restorative—can facilitate the attainment and sustainability of a SLO. These principles address fairness in decision-making, benefit distribution, community engagement, and rectification of past injustices, fostering trust and aligning energy initiatives with community needs.

Unlocking Private Law’s Potential in Climate Litigation: The Right to Prevention as a Tool for Change

Climate litigation, Private Law

Climate litigation has surged worldwide, with notable cases capturing public attention and fuelling academic discussion. While these cases often spark debate on judicial ‘activism’ in compelling government action, the fundamental role of private law, especially the right to prevent damage, is frequently overlooked. This blog post, which relates my article ‘The Overlooked Role of Public Law: Channelling the Right to Prevention into Climate Litigation’ published in Carbon & Climate Law Review, sheds light on how private law principles, commonly used to address harm prevention, underlie these prominent climate cases. This holds particularly true in Europe, where private law drives judicial reasoning and the outcomes of these cases. This post explores this overlooked dimension in key European climate cases, including Urgenda (Netherlands), Greenpeace (Norway), Klimaatzaak (Belgium), L’affaire Du Siècle/Notre Affaire à Tous (France), Klimaseniorinnen (Switzerland), and Neubauer (Germany).

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Reporting from an Environmentalist’s (Not Investor’s) Lens

Environmental Law

Environmental, social, and governance (‘ESG’) reporting is increasingly practiced by companies. But is ESG reporting good or bad for the environment? How might we even approach such a question? The investigation of this question lies at the heart of my paper, ‘[ESG] Reporting from an Environmentalist’s (Not Investor’s) Lens’, published in (2023) 47 Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal 52-104.

Liability for Environmental Harm to the Global Commons

Environmental Law, International Law

On 10 November 1988, the oil tanker Odyssey broke apart in the North Atlantic 700 miles off the Canadian coast. With 132,000 tons of crude oil released into the marine environment, it was one of the largest oil spills to have ever occurred. However, because it occurred in the high seas and did not reach the shores of any state, no response actions were taken, even though marine environmental harm almost certainly occurred. The pollution did not trigger the same sort of response as an oil spill in maritime areas under sovereignty (such as territorial waters) or under national jurisdiction (such as Exclusive Economic Zones) because the harm itself was to the environment per se as opposed to impacting the economic interests of a particular state or private actor. Even if the consequent environmental harm was quantifiable and compensable, it is not clear what legal entities would have the right to recover for the loss suffered. This is a function of the nature of the high seas as a “global commons” area or an area beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), where no state has jurisdiction and where harm is suffered by all states and arguably by all humankind, given the interconnected nature of the oceans and the variety of ecosystem services it provides.