Elisabeth Mann Borgese

In public international law circles, especially those indulging in the law of the sea, Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the youngest daughter born to German Nobel Prize-winning novelist Thomas Mann in 1918, is perhaps best known for her pioneering work on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Her convictions and contributions to the UNCLOS focused on social justice, equitable access to resources, and environmental protection. By offering a glimpse into her contributions to the UNCLOS, this post highlights how Elisabeth Mann Borgese’s ideology – influenced in part by her cautious feminist beliefs – permeates her legacy.

The Heidelberg Declaration on Transforming Global Meat Governance

Meat is at the center of interrelated environmental and public health crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pandemics, food insecurity, unhealthy and unsustainable diets, and institutionalized animal suffering. While eating or not eating meat has traditionally been seen as a private choice, it is increasingly becoming a public and political issue, as the social, ecological, and ethical costs of industrialized meat production are becoming more visible and prominent. Scientific evidence is piling indicating the need for a sustainable food system and dietary transitions away from animal-based foods.

The Habitats Directive as a Tool for Systemic Biodiversity Litigation

On 22 January 2025, the District Court of The Hague found the Netherlands in breach of the Habitats Directive and the Dutch nitrogen targets by failing to stop the deterioration of protected habitats and by failing to prioritise the most vulnerable habitats through its nitrogen targets. This blogpost provides an overview of the judgment and argues that the case enables a link between the location specific approach of EU nature protection and a systemic dimension and highlights the strength of the Habitats Directive. Conversely, it shows some limitations regarding the remedy and a missed opportunity to consider the longer-term and inter-generational impacts

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. 

Prohibiting Drivers of Biodiversity Loss

On 14 November 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found Germany in breach of the Habitats Directive (HD) due to a failure to prohibit agricultural activities that drove biodiversity loss in protected (Natura 2000) sites. The ruling in C-47/23 appears significant due to its focus on the drivers of deterioration and the need to take legally binding measures against those drivers. In light of the poor state of nature across the EU and the ongoing failure to adequately address the drivers of biodiversity loss, this ruling provides an important clarification on the HD’s non-deterioration obligation.

In ruhige Gewässer

Rechte der Natur erregen die Gemüter. In Deutschland riefen jüngst zwei Urteile des LG Erfurt heftige Reaktionen hervor. Auch in Spanien, wo bereits 2022 mit der Salzwasserlagune Mar Menor das erste europäische Ökosystem mit Rechten ausgestattet wurde, um die fortschreitende Zerstörung durch Pestizideintrag zu stoppen, wurden hitzige Debatten geführt. Am 20.11.2024 hat das spanische Verfassungsgericht die Verfassungskonformität dieses Rechtsakts bestätigt und damit die Debatte in verfassungsrechtlich ruhigere Gewässer gelenkt.

Handelsabkommen für das Klima?

Alle Blicke waren auf Baku und die Klimakonferenz COP 29 gerichtet, als die Regierungen von Costa Rica, Island, Neuseeland und der Schweiz im November die Unterzeichnung ihres Abkommens bekanntgaben. Der Zeitpunkt wirkt dennoch nicht wie ein Zufall, denn das „Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability“ (ACCTS) ist nicht bloß ein weiteres Freihandelsabkommen. Vielmehr könnte es einen ganz neuen Typus von Abkommen begründen. Das Abkommen leistet Pionierarbeit und zeigt Mechanismen auf, die das Handelsrecht in eine neue Ära des Nachhaltigkeitsrechts überführen könnten.

The Return of Not-Quite „Phantom Experts“?

On Monday, 2 December 2024, the much anticipated hearing began in the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice. Less than a week before the start of the hearing, the Court issued a brief and unusual press release about a meeting that it held with scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Court’s decision to meet privately with the scientists raises questions about the Court’s procedures and its approach to evidence. Above all, it is unclear why the Court decided to consult with the IPCC scientists in a closed meeting rather than eliciting testimony from these individuals as part of the formal, public hearing.

Into Reverse Gear

The recent Hague Court of Appeal judgment, in the appeal brought by Shell against the first instance decision in favour of the NGO Milieudefensie, held that Shell is legally obliged to reduce its scope 3 emissions, but did not order Shell to reduce them by 45%, or indeed any percentage. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on climate change litigation against corporations beyond just the Netherlands. That impact will be all the greater if the losing parties, Milieudefensie and others, do not appeal.

Towards a Bundle of Duties

This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change.