Thema: Klima & Umwelt

Umweltverfassungsrecht, verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der Klimagovernance, Umweltrechte als Verfassungsrechte und verfassungsrechtliche Regulierung der Umweltpolitik. Umfasst verfassungsrechtlichen Umweltschutz, Klimarechte und verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der Nachhaltigkeit.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive beyond Europe

The CSDDD is a game changer that forces a large number of European States to level the legislative landscape with regard to corporate responsibility for human rights and environmental impacts, as well as in relation to liability and access to justice. And yet, its reach throughout global “chains of activities” will most likely bring important hurdles for implementation including in relation to the scope of human rights covered in practice; the need for effective capacity-building in transnational chains of activities; the need for a more proactive dialogue and cooperation between the EU and other States; and last but not least, in ensuring consistency between the national implementation of the CSDDD and international and regional human rights obligations.

14. Juni 2024

, , ,

From Paper to Practice

The CSDDD requires companies to carry out due diligence on actual and potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. This means companies have to identify harmful impacts in their value chains and take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, or bring them to an end. In this two-part blog post, we will look at which environmental impacts are covered by the CSDDD and how they are addressed. In this second part, we will discuss how the CSDDD negotiations influenced the design of its environmental provisions and identify missed opportunities. We will conclude by analysing what factors are important to ensure that transposition and implementation remain true to the CSDDD’s objectives.

10. Juni 2024

, , ,

More than a Sink

The difference between treating the oceans as a mere sink versus protecting them as a vital part of the environment has important implications under international law. These implications come to the fore when considering the relationship between the UNCLOS on the one hand and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement on the other. While the latter treaties in no way legitimize pollution of the marine environment, their focus on oceans as sinks could be misinterpreted to deprive UNCLOS and the customary rules it codifies of a meaningful role in addressing climate change.

7. Juni 2024

, , , , , ,

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

, , , , ,

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

, , ,

A Small But Important Step

While no advisory opinion can solve the climate crisis, the ITLOS decision does provide an important push for action, both globally and at the national level. It cleared the way for the ICJ’s forthcoming opinion on climate change, demonstrating how a clear and solid line of arguments can be developed. Although the ICJ may decide differently due to variations in the questions posed and treaties interpreted, it is unlikely to diverge significantly from the ITLOS narrative or reject its findings on related topics.

27. Mai 2024

, , , , ,

The ITLOS Advisory Opinion and Marine Geoengineering

The ITLOS advisory opinion does little to resolve the long-standing uncertainty regarding the legal status of marine geoengineering activities. On the contrary, the opinion raises more questions than it answers. ITLOS seems content to leave those questions to others. Indeed, in the advisory opinion, ITLOS noted that “marine geoengineering has been the subject of discussions and regulations in various fora,” including the London Convention and Protocol. But after nearly twenty years, the regulatory framework for marine geoengineering adopted by the parties to the London Convention and Protocol is still not, strictly speaking, legally binding. Perhaps the advisory opinion will spur the parties into action.

25. Mai 2024

, , , , , ,

After Switzerland Comes Austria

The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been the subject of intense debate for several weeks. One focus was on the question of standing, i.e., who can bring a lawsuit connected to climate change and human rights before the ECtHR. However, less attention has been paid to the question of the impact of the judgment on currently pending climate change cases before the ECtHR. This blog post sheds light on “climate change case number four”, a case against Austria primarily challenging the shortcomings of the Austrian Climate Protection Act.

24. Mai 2024

, , , ,