Private ‘bottom-up’ enforcement has been central to the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote effective compliance with its ambitious environmental laws. This approach is strengthened by the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention, which aims to democratize environmental enforcement by conferring citizens and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) with legal rights of access to environmental information, rights of public participation, and rights of access to justice (the so-called ‘Aarhus mechanisms’). This article empirically assesses the extent to which the Aarhus mechanisms empower ENGOs to take an active role in the private enforcement of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Based on 75 surveys and 30 interviews with ENGOs from three Member States (France, Ireland, the Netherlands), we apply regulatory intermediary theory to show how European ENGOs play a vital role in intermediating between (i) EU Member States and their citizens, (ii) the EU and individual citizens, and even (iii) the EU and its Member States. We bring new empirical insights into the role of law as an enabler of regulatory intermediaries, and its potential as a tool for orchestrating regulatory intermediaries.

Plastic litter is introduced into the oceans from land-based sources located in many countries around the world. Marine plastic pollution may therefore be attributable to multiple states, resulting in shared state responsibility. This article discusses the issue of shared state responsibility for land-based marine plastic pollution by examining (i) primary rules of international law concerning the prevention of land-based marine plastic pollution; (ii) secondary rules of international law on this subject; and (iii) possible ways of strengthening the primary rules. It concludes that the barrier for the invocation of state responsibility may become higher in cases of shared state responsibility. Three cumulative solutions to this problem are proposed: elaborating the obligation of due diligence, strengthening compliance procedures, and interlinking regimes governing the marine environment and international watercourses.

Climate change mitigation calls for the limitation and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across all sectors. However, limiting GHG emissions from aviation has proven to be problematic for technical reasons (e.g., lack of low-carbon alternatives) as well as legal reasons (e.g., international aviation does not readily fall within any one state's jurisdiction). Relevant initiatives have followed two streams. At the international level, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has adopted technical standards and, more recently, a market-based mechanism to limit emissions from international civil aviation. In parallel, states have adopted their own policies and measures to regulate emissions from both domestic and international aviation, ranging from tax and technical standards to traffic management and infrastructural development. While much of the literature on climate change mitigation in the aviation sector has focused on international efforts, this article reveals the importance of understanding the tensions and complementarities of the two streams.

Recent geopolitical and environmental events have created a new urgency for a just energy transition and a socially inclusive modernization of the energy sector. This article critically evaluates the extent to which Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as the competence provision of EU energy law, is congruent with the energy justice framework emerging from social sciences. It establishes the substantive scope and justiciability of Article 194(1) TFEU, including the legal principles and so-called ‘guiding principles’ of the provision relating to the internal market, environmental protection, and energy solidarity. The article analyzes the potential and shortcomings of Article 194(1) TFEU in contributing to more equitable decision-making processes in EU energy law. It concludes by evaluating the provision as a regulatory instrument that facilitates the (re)balancing of competing interests of the energy sector. This research further concludes that social considerations of energy justice cannot be sufficiently addressed through Article 194(1) TFEU.

Based on an original database of 49 rights-based biodiversity (RBB) lawsuits filed around the world, this article hypothesizes that rights-based norms and institutions are becoming increasingly important in legal challenges aimed at biodiversity protection. We explain retrospectively the antecedents and characterize early RBB litigation by constructing a typology of cases and legal arguments that litigants and courts have used to establish the connection between biodiversity and rights protection. We then, prospectively, draw on our RBB case database and the trajectory of human rights and climate change (HRCC) litigation to anticipate likely trends, opportunities, and obstacles for future RBB cases. We posit that future RBB cases will build on the foundations laid by pioneering RBB cases, will apply lessons from HRCC litigation, and will systematically frame biodiversity loss as a rights issue.

Agricultural emissions in most countries have been increasing against a backdrop of decreasing non-agricultural emissions. The climate change treaties contain a qualification that appears to exempt the agricultural sector from mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions where there is a ‘threat to food production’. This potential mitigation exception gives rise to the risk that states will invoke a threat to food production in order to shield their agricultural sector from intensifying mitigation pressure. A systematic analysis of documentation issued pursuant to the climate treaties reveals that many states, both developed and developing, have made statements suggesting that their agricultural sector is relieved of some or all of the pressure placed on other economic sectors to deliver mitigation outcomes. However, this concern that mitigation of agricultural emissions will threaten food production is only weakly supported, even as it threatens achievement of the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global warming ‘well below 2°C’.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of rights-based climate litigation aimed at addressing climate change-induced loss and damage, underlining its potential as a transformative force amid the minimal progress towards a coordinated global response on this topic. It builds on literature highlighting the potential of rights-based climate litigation to fill the gap in accountability for climate change and its consequences, noting that research to date has not systematically analyzed the remedies that plaintiffs have sought or secured. By focusing on remedy claims, this study illuminates the capacity and the limitations of such litigation to unlock redress for loss and damage while highlighting its reciprocal relationship with international negotiations. This synergy implies a promising trajectory towards a more equitable climate governance framework, despite the complexities and challenges inherent in this rapidly evolving field.

The environmental assessment literature has neglected the distorting effect of cognitive and unconscious motivational biases (CUMB) in environmental assessment processes. This is problematic because CUMB are present in most, if not all, decision-making situations and can significantly distort decision-making processes. This article assesses how debiasing techniques are, or should be, incorporated in (supra)national environmental assessment legislation. The Dutch case study undertaken for this article shows that EU and Dutch legislation do not sufficiently incorporate debiasing techniques to ensure sound environmental decision making. Furthermore, the extent to which Dutch legislation incorporates debiasing techniques was found to be decreasing. Based on these findings, the article presents ways to incorporate debiasing techniques in environmental assessment legislation more generally, and in EU and Dutch legislation in particular.

Law – through regulation, criminalization and litigation – provides key mechanisms for mitigating the harmful effects of oil disasters. At the same time, these mechanisms also enable the perpetuation of oil disasters under an extractivist imperative. This disaster tolerance is the point of departure for this article's examination of the legal response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster over the last decade. Based on a methodology that combines a social harm approach with the political ecology of Felix Guattari, we firstly present a reconceptualization of harm inflicted by oil corporations across three registers: environment, society, and subjectivity. We subsequently introduce the concept of transversal harm, which allows us to move beyond the criminal and civil damage of corporate crime and negligence and to capture the collective and continuous impact of oil extractivism, as opposed to the exceptional impact of oil disasters. Transversal harm opens new avenues for assigning corporate responsibility and reducing disaster tolerance as the by-product of environmental law.

This article argues that an improved legal methodology is needed to ensure that states’ greenhouse gas emissions mitigation obligations are specified in line with best available science and the equity principle. In this vein, the article explores the extent to which the ‘meta-equity assessment’ of states’ emissions by the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) can contribute to this aim. The article finds that the CAT's PRIMAP Equity tool, embedded in the Potsdam Real-time Integrated Model for the probabilistic Assessment of emission Paths, offers the best available approach to distributing a global carbon budget among states in line with equity criteria recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The emissions data and global pathways used in the PRIMAP Equity tool can be updated. The major challenge ahead lies in understanding which of the emissions and temperature pathways can be applied in the legal context, and how.

This article studies eight cities in four countries in the southern African region (Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Botswana) to explore whether and how local governing authority has been channelled towards local climate-resilient development. The authors undertook a desk-based identification and review of available primary and secondary legal sources and normative documents while also drawing on scientific papers and policy documents for statistics and information about urbanization, climate change, politics, and governance in the selected countries. The analysis is interested in the law but is not strictly of a legal nature in the sense that the authors did not aim for a critical analysis of the regulatory detail in the relevant legal instruments. Instead, the article provides an evaluation of the political, de facto choices made by selected local governments as to how and to what extent to utilize their governing authority (legislative and executive) towards climate-resilient development. The authors explore if and how local government powers in the four southern African countries are currently leveraged for local climate action, and comment on the possible reasons for the status quo by comparing the four jurisdictions.

The rapid and widespread establishment of domestic environmental courts and tribunals raises important questions regarding their implications for international environmental law and global environmental governance. I use an interdisciplinary, multi-method approach to consider the capacity of domestic environmental courts to identify and apply norms and principles of international environmental law in domestic opinions. I first review existing literature, identifying jurisdiction, judicial discretion, and a court's position in a legal system as key institutional determinants of this capacity. I then develop a typology of domestic environmental courts and tribunals, which suggests that, all else being equal, a court with national geographic jurisdiction that also enjoys attributes of broad subject-matter jurisdiction and discretion may be expected to be best equipped to implement norms and principles of international environmental law. Next, I integrate existing assessments of environmental court presence with original outreach and web research to identify all countries which possess environmental courts, and assess a subset of eight existing national-level institutions. The analysis of this subset highlights the diversity of institutional models that can incorporate theorized best practices. Based on these findings, I draw several theoretical conclusions: specifically (i) the relevance of environmental court research to individual- and institutional-level analysis in transnational and international environmental law, (ii) the need for further legal-institutional analysis in global environmental governance scholarship, and (iii) the opportunity for further interdisciplinary analysis of the role of domestic courts in environmental governance.

In recent years, China has expanded its national weather modification programme to exploit climatic resources and adapt to climate change. The unprecedented scale of China's weather modification programmes has raised concerns over potential environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts. This article analyzes the domestic governance of weather modification in China and the extent to which this legal framework satisfies China's obligations under customary international law to minimize risks of significant transboundary harm. We find that existing arrangements do not satisfy procedural obligations under customary international law; nor do they adequately address the risks of environmental impacts associated with the increased use of weather modification. Procedures for transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA) and engagement with regional neighbours are needed for China to comply with international law and promote stability in the region.

This article traces the various legal incarnations of the intergenerational equity principle. Despite its silent proliferation in international and constitutional laws over the past five decades, the principle dwelled mostly at the margins of inquiry and practice. Recent efforts to counteract global warming have allowed intergenerational claims to gain new traction. Building on a comparison of ten climate-related lawsuits, I analyze the latest advances in the representation, conceptualization, and remediation of future generations’ interests. Against the backdrop of growing willingness to engage with intergenerational disputes, legal decision makers will need to confront two thorny challenges going forward. Firstly, evolving doctrines of extraterritoriality and legal subjecthood increasingly require the protective scope of the principle to extend to foreign citizens and non-human persons. Secondly, awareness of dispersed and interlocked long-term risks may trigger the application of intergenerational doctrines beyond a narrow environmental frame. Grappling with these challenges implicates larger reflections about the role of law in contriving our collective future.

In recent years, a number of jurisdictions have recognized diverse ecosystems and other-than-human organisms as legal persons. From national constitutions and legislation to subnational judicial decisions and ordinances, these legal experiments have extended legal personality to riverine and terrestrial ecological communities, including vast geographical areas and the beyond-human beings that inhabit them. A growing body of literature engages with these developments and, in particular, their consequences for states and governments. However, few analyses have considered the practical implications they may present for private organizations operating under company law. We address this research gap and explore potential challenges and opportunities that the recognition of ecosystems as legal persons may create for private legal persons, especially corporations. We also discuss the possible impacts and opportunities of the expansion of legal personality on company law and corporate practice more broadly, arguing for a reimagination of company law. This reimagination embraces an ethics of reciprocity, responsibility, and relationality between corporate entities, and ecological and human communities.

In 2008, Ecuador recognized rights of nature (RoN) in its Constitution. Since then, RoN have been relied upon in judicial decisions 55 times in Ecuador. Following years of ad hoc treatment of RoN by Ecuador's government and courts, its Constitutional Court selected various cases to establish binding jurisprudence in respect of RoN. In doing so, the Constitutional Court and various provincial courts in Ecuador have clarified the content of RoN, including specific criteria for determining RoN violations and the relationship between RoN and other constitutional rights, including community and economic rights related to development. Moreover, the courts are imposing sanctions on RoN violators, including the state and powerful commercial sectors. This article shows how Ecuadorian court decisions are changing RoN from a vague, abstract concept into a set of specific standards for how to balance RoN with various human rights and existing environmental law in order to implement sustainable development in an integrated and holistic manner that does not sacrifice ecosystem functioning. In doing so, the article contributes to the emerging literature on how new environmental law norms are constructed as they are put into practice, as well as the important role that judges play as norm entrepreneurs.

‘Mainstreaming’ climate change by embedding climate change considerations in government policies, processes, and operations can bolster the realization of climate mitigation and adaptation goals and reduce risks of counter-productive actions. Some climate laws around the world now contain explicit mainstreaming duties, in parallel with emissions reduction targets and adaptation planning requirements. This article proposes a conceptual model for climate change mainstreaming in government, with two pillars. Firstly, it defines objectives of climate mainstreaming, emphasizing that mainstreaming activities occur along a spectrum of ambition towards a goal of ‘mature mainstreaming’. Secondly, it proposes three complementary pathways to mature mainstreaming – regulatory, institutional, and capacity and capability-building pathways – to classify mainstreaming activities, and barriers to and enablers of mainstreaming. Grounded in empirical insights from a leading jurisdiction (Victoria, Australia), the model can assist governments to clearly articulate mainstreaming objectives and to identify, prioritize, and monitor mainstreaming initiatives to help in achieving their climate policy goals.