Why Climate Science Matters for International Law

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion on May 21, 2024 in response to a request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS). While various aspects of the advisory opinion have already been discussed in this joint blog symposium, this post focuses on a feature of the opinion that has so far received little emphasis: the strong role of science. The scientific evidence presented by the tribunal provides a solid basis for its conclusions on State obligations to prevent, reduce, and control climate pollution.

6. Juni 2024

, , , ,

From Strasbourg to Luxembourg?

KlimaSeniorinnen has established a remedy which, in EU law, is not easy to locate and may actually be unavailable in light of restrictive CJEU case law.  Whatever one’s views on this restrictive case law, it is a fact that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now obliges the CJEU to do as much as it can to accommodate the KlimaSeniorinnen remedy and to interpret the relevant TFEU provisions flexibly.  One may assume that, sooner or later, the CJEU will be confronted with a KlimaSeniorinnen claim.  If the CJEU were to declare such a claim inadmissible, it will put itself in the corner of courts refusing to engage with climate change policies.  That would be unfortunate for a court that has long been at the forefront of legal progress.

5. Juni 2024

, , , , ,

Finding Light in Dark Places

Can the new advisory opinion interpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) move us beyond the lethargy of unmet climate change policy needs? The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established the gravity of this question by stating that “climate change represents an existential threat and raises human rights concerns”. The Tribunal acted both boldly and conservatively by interpreting UNCLOS as an independent source of international legally binding obligations to address climate change and ocean acidification.

4. Juni 2024

, , , , ,

Dividing the Indivisible

The absence of a number of important human rights instruments from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, notably for indigenous peoples’ and migrants’ rights, are serious omissions and must be rectified at the EU level during the first review of the directive. Given the status of the CSDDD as a directive, Member States also have the freedom to add these missing instruments during national transposition and should do so in order to further honour their commitments under the UNGPs.

1. Juni 2024

, ,

National Human Rights Institutions – Critical but, Overlooked Actors

National Human Rights Institutions are a critical but often overlooked actor in the context of the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. As we enter the transposition and implementation phases, National Human Rights Institutions can leverage their unique mandate as human rights experts in their jurisdictions to act collectively and individually to ensure that transposition laws meet human rights standards for an effective implementation.

31. Mai 2024

, ,

A Comparative Analysis between the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the French and German Legislation

This blog post offers an initial comparative glimpse of the most important changes that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will bring for the respective mandatory human rights and environmental (HREDD) legislation in Germany and France. While both the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the German Supply Chain Act already require effective HREDD, the CSDDD goes a long way in strengthening the requirements and bringing them more in line with international standards.

30. Mai 2024

, , ,

ITLOS and the importance of (getting) external rules (right) in interpreting UNCLOS

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 21 May 2024 is truly remarkable. However, while ITLOS succeeded in noting the relevance of many other treaties and customary norms in international law, it fell short of a comprehensive and consistent approach to determining which other treaty norms would be relevant to the interpretation of UNCLOS and how. Establishing coherence by “taking into account external rules” means more than a general reference or a pick-and-choose approach to some relevant norms in an external treaty, while not to others.

29. Mai 2024

, , ,

Conditions of Corporate Civil Liability in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

The civil liability provision of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in Article 29 has been highly debated during the entire drafting and negotiation process of the Directive, but it held on. Where harm occurs, will Article 29 CSDDD fulfill its function to provide a right to remedy for the affected individuals and legal clarity for the companies at the same time?

28. Mai 2024

,

Access to Supply Chain Justice?

One of the novel features of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is a private law liability for damages caused upstream in the supply chain. However, liability under substantive law is worthless without procedural rules that allow for its enforcement. Within the context of supply chain liability there are at least two major procedural problems. First, victims affected by supply chain mishandlings might be unable to afford proceedings in Europe. Second, proving that a company has not exercised a sufficient level of diligence can be difficult. Art. 29 para. 3 CSDDD seeks to address those issues.

27. Mai 2024

, ,