Reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) – in particular, black carbon and methane – is a promising option for slowing global and regional warming in the short term, while at the same time reducing local air pollution. This mitigation opportunity seems to be particularly relevant in the Arctic context. The article provides a comprehensive overview and a critical assessment of the state of international law and governance relevant to the reduction of SLCP emissions in the Arctic. The article demonstrates that current legal and governance regimes for reducing SLCP emissions in the Arctic are complex and fragmented, which raises questions about the scope for this option for climate change and air pollution mitigation to reach its full potential. Nevertheless, the article concludes that fragmentation in this policy domain is of a cooperative or synergistic nature and therefore not problematic, provided that greater harmonization of legal instruments and enhanced cooperation between institutions are achieved. It also suggests options for strengthening international law and governance on SLCPs. Although the focus of the article is regional, many of its conclusions are relevant for the global regulation of SLCPs.

The system of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) found in over 3,000 bilateral investment treaties and numerous regional trade agreements has been criticized for interfering with the rights of sovereign states to regulate investment in the public interest, for example, to protect the environment and public health. This article argues that while much of the public debate around ISDS has focused on a small number of cases that have arisen over the regulation of tobacco packaging, there is a far greater threat posed by the potential use of ISDS by the fossil fuel industry to stall action on climate change. It is hypothesized that fossil fuel corporations will emulate a tactic employed by the tobacco industry – that of using ISDS to induce cross-border regulatory chill: the delay in policy uptake in jurisdictions outside the jurisdiction in which the ISDS claim is brought. Importantly, fossil fuel corporations do not have to win any ISDS cases for this strategy to be effective; they only have to be willing to launch them. The article concludes with three options to reform trade and investment agreements to better align them with climate change mitigation efforts: (i) exclude ISDS provisions; (ii) prohibit fossil fuel industries from accessing ISDS; or (iii) carve out all government measures taken in pursuit of international obligations (for example, under the Paris Agreement on climate change) from challenge under ISDS.

This article analyzes the international law obligations that arise in relation to nationally determined contributions (NDCs). It argues that distinct and concurrent obligations arise from two separate sources. On the one hand, treaty obligations arise under the Paris Agreement, which imposes an obligation of conduct on parties: they must take adequate measures towards the realization of the mitigation targets contained in their NDCs. On the other hand, communications such as NDCs may constitute unilateral declarations that also create legal obligations. These unilateral declarations impose obligations of various types, which may extend beyond mitigation. For example, they may specify measures of implementation or demand the achievement of a particular result. The potential ‘double-bindingness’ of NDCs should be a central consideration in the interpretation of international law obligations regarding climate change.

REDD+ – an incentive mechanism to reduce deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries – was developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and subsequently included in the Paris Agreement. Its early implementation activities have highlighted the role of certain intergovernmental actors: REDD+financing initiatives, including the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and Forest Investment Programme, and UN-REDD, a collaborative programme involving three agencies of the United Nations. By setting conditions for the provision of support for REDD+, these initiatives have actively and influentially engaged in REDD+rule making. This article focuses on the regulatory landscape for REDD+and examines rules developed under the UNFCCC and elaborated by the REDD+financing initiatives, using examples from the Latin American region. The analysis shows that informal lawmaking plays a more relevant role in REDD+rule making than international formal law, and has demonstrated legal and practical effects. However, informality can also tilt power relations between donor and recipient countries, which could jeopardize the legitimacy of transnational rule making.

This article assesses current and proposed European Union (EU) climate and environmental law, and the legal instruments associated with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), to see whether soil carbon sequestration is sufficiently promoted as a promising example of ‘climate-smart agriculture’. The assessment shows that current and proposed policies and instruments are inadequate to stimulate large-scale adoption of soil carbon projects across Europe. Given the identified structural flaws, it is likely that this is true for all climate-smart agricultural practices. An alternative approach needs to be developed. Under EU climate policy, agriculture should be included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) by allowing regulated industries to buy offsets from the agricultural sector, following the examples set by Australia and others. The second element of a new approach is aimed at the CAP, which needs to be far more focused on the specific requirements of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet, such stronger focus does not take away the need to explore new income streams for farmers from offsets under the ETS, as the CAP will never have sufficient funds for the deep and full transition of Europe’s agriculture sector that is needed.

Anthropogenic climate change represents a wicked problem, both for the Earth’s natural systems and for biodiversity conservation law and policy. Legal frameworks for conservation have a critical role to play in helping species and ecosystems to adapt as the climate changes. However, they are currently poorly equipped to regulate adaptation strategies that demand high levels of human intervention. This article investigates law and policy for conservation introductions, which involve relocating species outside their historical habitat. It takes as a case study Australian law on conservation introductions, demonstrating theoretical and practical legal hurdles to these strategies at international, national and subnational levels. The article argues that existing legal mechanisms may be repurposed, in some cases, to better regulate conservation introduction projects. However, new legal mechanisms are also needed, and soon, to effectively conserve species and ecosystems in a period of unprecedented ecological change.

To successfully respond to climate change impacts, it is imperative that governments structure adaptation laws and policies around their country’s existing legal framework. The United States (US), China, and Australia have all made adaptation attempts through legislative, executive, and judicial action. However, because the systems of law and governance of the three countries differ, the ways in which adaptation issues are managed vary. State and local adaptation planning functions as the leading adaptation pathway in the US, whereas in Australia judicial intervention is more influential than executive action. By contrast, China relies primarily on policy to manage adaptation issues. This article argues that the differences in adaptation responses are the result of a complex combination of factors, which include climate politics and awareness of adaptation, the status of environmental principles, and the role of the judiciary. This analysis helps in identifying the opportunities and barriers associated with different adaptation solutions, and also contributes to cross-jurisdictional learning.