No parent, partner, or child could quantify the worth of a beloved female family member lost to cervical cancer. And yet, with today’s economic realities – and most particularly in countries that struggle to meet citizens’ basic health needs – quantifying a woman’s financial benefit to her family and community becomes necessary to justify the cost of eradicating this disease. A senior health economist with the World Health Organization estimates that for every dollar spent on cervical cancer prevention, women’s paid and unpaid contributions return $26 USD to an economy: a return rate of twenty-six to one – impressive for any health intervention. Yet for varying political, social, and cultural reasons, most countries are reluctant to spend sufficient funds on female reproductive health care. These financial obstacles to eliminating cervical cancer won’t change until each unique society is willing to question how it values its women. Eliminating death by a preventable cancer makes intuitive sense. But until those sentiments translate into public policy and equitable, affordable health care for all women, lofty ideas are not enough to save lives.

The growing judicialization of ISDS through the use of precedent may be contributing to improved consistency in the interpretation of the FET standard. The FET standard and its interpretation by arbitral tribunals has been blamed for giving foreign investors carte blanche to sanction governments over broad swathes of policy. It is said to be lacking any common definition and that it is a vague and ambiguous catch-all term. This chapter provides a rigorous qualitative and quantitative empirical assessment of the use of citations and their role in the development of the FET standard consistently by tribunals across time. Based on the in-depth exploration of FET case law the authors find that three landmark cases have a de facto stare decisis with the effect of reconciling competing interpretations and ultimately providing a relatively consistent standard.

In the Anthropocene, earth system governance must be effective both within and across identities, and the inescapable equivocality of democratic governance means that discussions can never be closed but merely transformed as old problems and concerns give way to new.The experimental quality that effective environmental governance must possess cannot be a transient quality but, rather, must be a permanent feature of the landscape of democratic decision-making, in which success is realized in a context of identity politics.To take place without distortion and without posing systemic disadvantage, and for intergroup differences to be accommodated, substantial equality of access to decision-making and equitable allocation of fundamental capabilities are essential prerequisites.Institutional arrangements must provide for empowerment of those whose identities are otherwise ill-favored and the embeddedness of environmental decision-making in the communities of fate where people actually determine their shared life experiences.

More than just democracy in the form of aggregation of votes, deliberative democratic practice makes possible the learning, local knowledge, and engagement required by enlightened environmental governance under the conditions associated with the concept of the Anthropocene.

Access and allocation firmly ground the concept of human security in the larger context of social justice, posing serious challenges for equitable earth system governance.The focus on capabilities brings together a range of ideas addressed inadequately in traditional approaches to the economics of welfare. The capabilities approach highlights the importance of real freedoms in the assessment of persons’ relative level of advantage, promoting a more realistic balance of materialistic and non-materialistic factors in evaluating human welfare and a concern for the distribution of substantive opportunities within society.Research on access to and allocation of environmental resources in a deliberative system of democratic governance builds on and extends an existing limited research literature on the implications of deliberative democratic practices for environmental justice policy and governance.More equitable access to and allocation of environmental “goods” should be a focus for a next generation of environmental research characterized by improved normative understanding as well as more meaningful and reflexive potential for sustainability transformation.

Directors’ duties can be classified into two themes: duties in relation to care and skill, and duties in relation to loyalty and good faith. Chapter 10 provided an overview of the duties as a whole, and Chapter 11 provided the history and current law in relation to the duties of care and skill. This chapter is the first of two chapters addressing the duties of loyalty and good faith. These duties fall into two categories: those concerned with the way in which directors exercise the powers and discretions vested in them, and those concerned with the standard of conduct expected from directors.