The COVID-19 pandemic that turned the world upside down in early 2020 also gave rise to an “infodemic” of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This chapter tackles three issues. We first explore the political and ideological underpinnings of the COVID-19 infodemic and its organizational, rhetorical, and ideological links to climate denial. We then highlight the legitimacy of political grievances in light of government pandemic policies. We conclude by proposing a sketch of the boundary between politically-motivated denial of science on the one hand and legitimate political arguments on the other.

This chapter turns to the judicial bureaucrats’ review of the facts and evidence on the record. As all soon discover, it is impossible to reconstruct the historical or objective truth behind a case, but only to come up with a persuasive factual narrative that obscures as much as it reveals. What may appear a structured and logical task proves more akin to bricolage. As they parse through the record, bureaucrats are bound to select the facts they deem most salient, ascribe varying weight to the scraps of information they come across, and use whatever is at hand to stitch up an assessment able to withstand scrutiny. Things get even trickier – and more uncertain – where technical or scientific evidence is involved. Some courts are better equipped to engage in extensive factual review than others. These differences notwithstanding, most international judges tend to have little patience for complex evidentiary issues, which they happily delegate to their legal assistants.

UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 require that equitable solutions are achieved on the basis of international law. This entails an obligation to consider all relevant circumstances. Courts and tribunals traditionally delimit bilateral boundaries by delimiting an equidistance line and only adjust it by reference to relevant circumstances. Such circumstances primarily relate to coastal geography and the time of delimitation. However, judicial decisions can consider coastal instability, and complicated scientific evidence. This has allowed courts and tribunals to assess seasonal changes to ice sheets and access to fish stocks; the status of coastal features; and feasibility of potential base points. Indeed, foreseeable changes to coastal geography can affect the delimitation process to produce boundaries that are less dependent on particularly unstable coastal features. This can strengthen the link between fluctuating maritime limits and permanent boundaries and prevent invocation of the rebus sic stantibus principle. Foreseeable changes to coastal geography can affect the choice of base points or delimitation methods and lead to an adjustment of provisional boundaries.

This chapter analyses the environmental case practice of ad hoc inter-state tribunals and arbitral panels established under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judicial techniques to reflect on the scientific profile of cases are analysed in light of the Bering Sea Fur Seals, Trail Smelter, Lake Lanoux, MOX Plant, MOX Plant OSPAR, Iron Rhine, Southern Bluefin Tuna, Kishenganga, and South China Sea Arbitrations. The chapter examines how adjudicators frame the legally relevant aspects of science-intensive disputes, and the varied avenues tribunals utilize for gathering expert advice. It discusses the significance of appointing independent experts. The chapter also examines the science-based causal inquiries and causal tests from the practice of arbitral tribunals.

This chapter identifies an evolving trend in the ICJ’s engagement with science, which has started with the marginalization of scientific evidence, continued with making superficial evidentiary assessments, but ultimately demonstrated an increasing willingness to engage with science. As to framing techniques, mandating the parties’ negotiations in science-intensive questions, the prevalence of finding procedural breaches as well as decoupling the notion of ’risk’ from substantive, scientific criteria will be discussed. In terms of fact-finding, the chapter addresses evolving procedures for taking expert evidence, and applicable standards of proof. The causal analysis evidences the Court’s struggle with establishing the requisite proof in cases of uncertain causation. As to the standard and extent of review, the study examines the reasonableness test, and defends the majority's solution in the Whaling in the Antarctic case based on insights from Science and Technology Studies.

This chapter first identifies the numerous ways in which scientific knowledge may gain legal significance in environmental disputes brought before ITLOS. It then discusses the framing techniques with which ITLOS adjusts the science-intensity of its legal inquiry. In particular, deeming science-intensive disputes justiciable, crafting precautionary justifications, mandating the parties’ expert-led co-operation in scientific issues, and utilizing scientific progress for setting a high bar for states’ due diligence obligations will be discussed. As to fact-finding, the chapter discusses the variety of evidentiary powers granted to the tribunal, and shows that it primarily relies on party-adduced evidence, while leaves its novel fact-finding avenues underutilized. The chapter concludes with discussing the causal tests announced by the tribunal on the rare occasions it has laid out a causal inquiry.

International biodiversity policies have evolved with different contexts and motivations. Moving from a strictly biodiversity-centred focus, with the creation of early national parks, they now include people and their needs in the conservation policy perspective. Here we provide a brief history over the last 50 years of the development of global United Nations conventions. Focusing on the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD),the recent establishment of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the 2030 Agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), we explore how these three institutions function and align. We discuss the role of science and evidence in decision-making and review current developments. Finally, we provide an outlook of how scientists can actively engage to provide science impact in advancing conservation policy-making.