International law governing the settlement of disputes through law-based forums, such as courts, tribunals and arbitral tribunals, is fraught with limitations that are becoming especially apparent with respect to disputes that involve the protection of the environment. However despite the deficiencies of the law, international courts and tribunals have issued judgements in disputes involving the protection of the environment. At the global level the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) have handed down decisions in relevant cases. In addition other legal forums can also be called upon to decide cases involving international environmental law. Such forums include the Environmental Chamber of the ICJ and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under its general facilities and under the Environmental Facility that it is planning to establish. Similarly, special bodies, such as the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), may decide on cases. Moreover, regional forums such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Community (ECJ) have ruled on cases involving international environmental law. Despite these developments, calls for the establishment of an international environmental court at the global level persist. Several arguments have been advanced to justify the establishment of an international environmental court, for example the very many pressing environmental problems that exist today and the need for a bench consisting of experts in international environmental law to consider theseproblems, the need for individuals and groups to have access to environmental justice at the international level, the need to enable international organizations to be parties to disputes related to the protection of the environment and the need for dispute settlement procedures that enable the common interest in the environment to be addressed. Arguments against the establishment of an international environmental court have been advanced as well. These arguments include the following: the proliferation of international courts and tribunals would result in the fragmentation of international law, existing courts and tribunals are, or can be, well equipped to consider cases involving environmental issues and disputes involving international environmental law also involve other aspects of international law. This publication explores the arguments for and against the establishment of an international environmental court, examining topics such as the definition of an international environmental dispute and the concomitant expertise required on the bench, fragmentation and its root causes, access to justice and the representation of community interests. The author argues that the establishment of an international environmental court is not the most desirable option and she suggests that it might be more fruitful if we consider developments in environmental law, as well as in other relevant areas of international law, from a different perspective, namely, that of administrative law and reassess the relationship between international and national law. Such an approach, she argues is warranted if, "inter alia," viable means for resolving environmental disputes that may arise are to be identified.

The interplay between procedure and substance has not been a major point of contention for international environmental lawyers. Arguably, the topic’s low profile is due to the mostly uncontroversial nature of the field’s distinction between procedural and substantive obligations. Furthermore, the vast majority of environmental law scholars and practitioners have tended to welcome the procedural features of multilateral environmental agreements and their potential to promote regime evolution and effectiveness. However, recent developments have served to put the spotlight on certain aspects of the procedure substance topic. ICJ judgments revealed ambiguity on aspects of the customary law framework on transboundary harm prevention that the field had thought largely settled. In turn, in the treaty context, the Paris Agreement’s retreat from binding emissions targets and its decisive turn towards procedure reignited concerns in some quarters over the “proceduralization” of international environmental law. The two developments invite a closer look at the respective roles of, and the relationship between, procedure and substance in this field and, more specifically, in the context of harm prevention under customary and treaty law.

A perfect introduction to climate change law, this textbook offers students and scholars an overview of the international law governing this fundamental issue. It demonstrates how to interpret the language used in the applicable instruments and conventions, and sets climate change law in its broader international legal context.

A comprehensive examination of international environmental litigation which addresses the major environmental challenges of the twenty-first century.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 underscored the need to reform the current institutional framework for environmental governance. Chambers and Green, both affiliated with the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies in Japan, gather contributors to take up the question left unanswered at Johannesbur

This book uses environmental disputes as a focus to develop a novel comparative analysis of the functions of international adjudication. Paine focuses on three challenges confronting international tribunals: managing change in applicable legal norms or relevant facts, determining the appropriate standard and method of review when scrutinising State conduct for compliance with international obligations, and contributing to wider processes of dispute settlement. The book compares how tribunals manage these challenges across four key sites of international adjudication: adjudication in the World Trade Organization and under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, International Court of Justice litigation, and investment treaty arbitration. It shows that while international tribunals perform several key functions in the contemporary international legal order, they are subject to significant constraints. Paine makes a genuine addition to literature on the role of international adjudication in international law which will benefit academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

The "business case" for corporate social responsibility, which suggests that socially and environmentally aware companies can expect to reap financial rewards, is seemingly gaining widespread acceptance within the business community. This is particularly apparent in the ever-increasing number of prominent companies parading their social, ethical and environmental credentials by producing paper- or web-based social and environmental, or sustainability, reports. In so doing, reporting companies claim, they are demonstrating a clear commitment to transparency and accountability to their key stakeholder groups. However, in the prevailing voluntaristic, business-case-centred climate within which such initiatives are taking place, little thought appears to have gone into the question of how stakeholders, other than the capital provider group, can actually use corporate disclosures offered in order to hold management accountable for the social and environmental consequences of their actions. While much corporate rhetoric abounds concerning notions of stakeholder dialogue and engagement, rigorous analysis of the governance implications of their claimed commitment to the principles of corporate social responsibility is largely conspicuous by its absence. Corporate Social Responsibility, Accountability and Governance seeks to explore this "missing link" between CSR (and associated reporting initiatives) and governance mechanisms that are capable of embracing true stakeholder accountability. A wide range of case studies, drawing on experiences of both public- and private-sector initiatives in Europe, the United States, Canada, South America and Asia, offer insightful analysis of the complex relationships between the state, the market and civil society in the development of CSR, accountability and sustainable development. The book employs a multidisciplinary perspective in order to analyse the political, social, economic, technological, legal and organisational shaping of CSR. The complexities underpinning the concept are thereby clearly drawn out and the gross oversimplifications inherent in the prevailing consultancy-driven, business-case literature painfully exposed. Above all, the book offers a sound, practically and theoretically informed contribution to public policy debate and reflects and builds on urgent calls from public- and private-sector policy-makers as well as academics to develop better governance and accountability frameworks for business to deal with the imperatives of social responsibility, sustainable development and ethics. This book is divided into five parts. In Part 1, the complex concepts of responsibility, accountability and governance are discussed, and in particular the presumed relationships between the state, the market and civil society in improving accountability and governance are explored and critiqued. Part 2 consists of chapters relating to corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory. Part 3 is concerned with empirical studies covering governance structures, networking and corporate social responsibility. Part 4 deals with corporate governance and its implications for regulators and civil society. Part 5 discusses multinational companies and how they impact on national governance regimes. Finally, a summary is provided with emerging international patterns of accountability and governance structures. Corporate Social Responsibility, Accountability and Governance will be essential reading for public and private policy-makers and practitioners and academics interested in how CSR can become more than a soundbite, and rather a substantial force for better global corporate governance and accountability.