In 2010, Haiti's 7.0 magnitude earthquake resulted in more than 200,000 deaths and more than one million homeless. This event recaptured the attention of international society regarding disaster-related governmental policies and legislation. In 2011, Resolution 7 of the International Conference of the Red Cross reiterated the urgency for states to be prepared to facilitate and regulate any international disaster assistance, using the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance (also known as the “IDRL Guidelines”). The International Conference adopted these guidelines in 2007; nevertheless, several countries did not implement the recommendations of the IDRL guidelines before the Haiti earthquake. Such was the case of Ecuador, which, after 2010, began to work on the implementation of the IDRL guidelines. In the beginning, public officials were very skeptical about the IDRL Guidelines as a tool for mitigating the consequences of disasters.

“In this context the proposition that tools are prolongations of human organs can be inverted to state that the organs are also prolongations of the tools.”

Climate change litigation is a global phenomenon. According to a database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, as of February 4, 2019 a total of 1,297 climate cases had been filed in courts or other tribunals worldwide. Of these, 1,009—78 percent—were from the United States, Australia was a distant second, with ninety-eight, followed by the United Kingdom with forty-seven. No other country had as many as twenty. The cases were filed in twenty-nine countries and six international tribunals, led by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had forty-one.

When it comes to trade law, it is true that there appear to be certain signs that we are moving back to non-discrimination and away from deeper forms of integration. However, this is possibly (and hopefully) only a limited and temporary shift. The strongest evidence of such a shift regards the apparent interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (AB) of the key provisions in the TBT Agreement in such a way as to give prevalence to the national treatment standard in Article 2.1 over the necessity requirements in Article 2.2. For example, in US – Tuna II (Mexico) the AB found the U.S. dolphin-safe regulations under review inconsistent with Article 2.1, while also reversing the panel finding that the U.S. dolphin-safe regulations were inconsistent with Article 2.2. Such a result is surprising if one considers the general agreement among commentators that the disciplines embodied in the TBT Agreement (as well as in the SPS Agreement) went beyond the non-discrimination obligation of the GATT.