Articles for tag: climate changecustomary lawfossil fuelsIGHKlimakriseRechtsgutachtenState Responsibility

Can Africa Still Drill?

While the ICJ found that any State suffering from climate change can bring charges against others for their contribution to climate change, the opinion does not distinguish between the obligations of developed and developing States (except where treaty law already imposes different obligations).  African States and the African Union have continued to support fossil fuel development on the continent. In light of this advisory opinion, what obligations are imposed on developing States, like African States, to protect the climate, particularly regarding the further development of fossil fuel industries? 

The Struggle Against Fossil Sovereignty

Over the course of decades, law has primarily functioned to enable and support the extraction, production, and consumption of fossil energy. As a result, planetary destruction remains not only awfully lucrative but also, in many cases, legally protected. The substantive impact of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will depend largely on how effectively it contributes to dismantling the stronghold of fossil sovereignty. That tangled web of fossil-friendly laws has often obstructed or blunted progressive climate politics or any other interference with unsustainable, fossil-driven profit-making.

From Objectives to Obligations

On December 13, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded the hearings of the advisory proceedings on State obligations in respect of Climate Change. On the last day of the hearings, judges posed four questions to participants to be answered within a one-week timeframe. The Judges enquired about State obligations in relation to fossil fuels; the interpretation of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; the content of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment; and the significance of declarations made by some States on becoming parties to the UN climate treaties. This blog post will provide a brief exploration of the first two questions and issues raised. 

Downstream Emissions as Climate Impacts

In a 3-2 majority, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling today, significantly impacting the consideration of climate impacts in the oil and gas licensing process. While the Government’s approach so far has been to only consider exploration and production emissions, the Court’s decision establishes that emissions resulting from burning the produced oil and gas (regardless of where it occurs) have to also be considered. The ruling is significant as it is the first highest court decision to adopt this interpretation on climate impacts of fossil fuel production. It will no doubt have a knock-on effect on at least three other cases pending before lower courts in the UK, and potentially affect cases both within and outside the European Union.

Warum wir einen Verbotsvertrag für fossile Brennstoffe brauchen

Während der COP 28 Konferenz schlossen sich Palau, Kolumbien, Samoa und Nauru offiziell der Forderung nach einem Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung fossiler Brennstoffe an.  Die Ankündigungen erfolgten in Dubai, während viele Organisationen der Zivilgesellschaft und Regierungsdelegationen sich noch für einen COP-Beschluss zum Ausstieg aus der Förderung fossiler Brennstoffe einsetzten. Diese eigenständige Vertragsinitiative, die vom Europäischen Parlament, der WHO sowie von zahlreichen Städten und wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen unterstützt wird, wird von 12 Staaten angeführt, von denen 11 Inselstaaten sind, die am stärksten von der Klimakrise betroffen sind. Wie ich darlegen werde, ist es in der Tat eine gute Idee, einen neuen Vertrag über das Verbot der Förderung fossiler Brennstoffe auszuhandeln, auch wenn sich einige Öl, Gas und Kohle exportierende Länder weigern, daran teilzunehmen.

Undermining the Energy Transition

Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights.

The Local Case Against Climate Deception

Over the last five years, cities, counties, and states across the country have sued fossil fuel companies alleging that the companies violated state law in marketing their products as safe. Collectively, these cases are known as climate liability cases or climate deception cases. On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a petition on whether the climate liability cases should be heard in state or federal court. As a result, 11 cases will be remanded to state court to move towards motions to dismiss, discovery, and trial. The Supreme Court’s decision also helps plaintiffs in more than a dozen other cases argue that their cases against fossil fuel companies should be heard in state court, rather than federal court, and it may help spur more state court filings. This is a big win for the city, county, and state plaintiffs, after they engaged in a five-year fight to keep the cases in state court.

The Reform That Isn’t

As states are set to vote on the reform of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) at a Conference in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, on 22 November, concerns regarding the treaty's impact on states' climate policies remain significant. In our assessment, the proposed reform fails to provide the treaty’s contracting parties with the necessary regulatory freedom to implement their climate commitments. Scheduled for the week after COP27, the vote comes at a crucial time, as scientists agree that this is the decisive decade to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Meanwhile, several EU Member States, including Germany, France, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, and Slovenia have announced unilateral withdrawals from the treaty, stating that the proposed reform fails to meet their expectations.

RePowerEU and End War by Ending Fossil Fuels

Putin’s criminal war on Ukraine has forced the Commission to say it will ‘RePowerEU’, to end Russian fossil fuels. We must clearly end all fossil fuels, and drive as fast as technology allows to 100% clean energy. To do this we should capitalise upon the vast range of legal options in our European economic constitution: that is the ‘law of enterprise’. The geopolitical situation requires us to see our law as an organic, social whole, and for all private and public actors to be on board.