In numerous climate litigation cases before national courts, plaintiffs have referred to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and/or the Paris Agreement to support their claims. So far, no systematic appraisal has been conducted on how national courts have responded to such references to international climate law and the extent to which they have engaged with it. This article examines 148 cases in which plaintiffs refer to international climate law, mapping and analyzing judgments of national courts that either avoid, align with, or contest this legal framework. The findings indicate that invoking international climate law is not an easy path to success, as courts often have opted to avoid engagement with claims based on international climate law. Yet, in several landmark cases, courts have aligned with international climate law, contributing to the advancement of the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

In a world grappling with escalating agrochemical pollution, this article explores the potential for shifting from a security-centric approach to a human rights-based approach to safeguard health, the environment, and biodiversity. By engaging with European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence related to environmental protection and climate change, the article critically assesses how to address state (in)action regarding pollutants such as pesticides through human rights litigation. In its analysis, the article highlights climate change litigation as a catalyst for change to assert states’ threefold obligations to respect, protect, and realize human rights. It concludes that the legal approaches developed in climate litigation – with regard to both procedural and substantive aspects – provide a strong basis for addressing the human rights impacts of agrochemical harm.

The corporate responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is seen increasingly as having a legal dimension, grounded in human rights, due diligence laws, and tort law. Corporate climate strategies often rely on carbon credits to offset emissions, but available credits typically fail to deliver real reductions. This raises doubts about their suitability for meeting responsibilities to reduce emissions.

This article examines the issue through the lens of due diligence, a key concept in defining corporate obligations. Due diligence demands that firms prioritize preventive and effective action to address the climate impacts of their business activities. Available carbon credits meet neither condition; accordingly, they are, as a rule, unsuitable for fulfilling a corporate duty to reduce GHG emissions.

The article also evaluates exceptions suggested in guidance documents, particularly the use of credits for offsetting residual and Scope 3 emissions. It concludes that these exceptions are difficult to justify from a due diligence standpoint, given the limited effectiveness of credits.

Batteries are identified as a key product value chain, not only for the transition to climate neutrality but also for the European Union’s (EU) transition towards a circular economy (CE). Therefore, the EU has the ambition to create an ecosystem for sustainable batteries that follows a CE approach. As part of this effort, the EU has reviewed and revised the legislation governing the life cycle of batteries: EU chemicals, product and waste legislation. A recent example is the adoption of the Batteries Regulation, which is the first comprehensive legal framework focusing on the entire life cycle of a specific product. The Regulation removes many barriers and introduces incentives to support the transition towards a more circular battery value chain, as identified in this article through both literature and stakeholder interviews in the Netherlands. Compared to the Batteries Directive, the Batteries Regulation appears to better align with and contribute more effectively to CE objectives. Yet, this article also identifies some remaining challenges and suggestions for improvement. Close attention should be paid to the implementation of the Batteries Regulation and its encouragement of higher value retention strategies, as well as to the interaction within the legal framework on batteries as a whole to prevent adverse effects and to exploit synergies in pursuance of CE objectives.

This article explores a continuum of environmental participation, from formalized participation in decision-making processes, protected by law, at one end, to protest on the streets, criminalized by law, at the other. Participation across this continuum is partially constituted, but also constrained, by law. We share and extend Brian Wynne’s evocative language of ‘uninvited’ participation to describe the contributions that fall outside institutionalized participation, so that our continuum is composed of ‘invited participation’, ‘uninvited participation’, and ‘forbidden participation’. Focusing especially on those states where liberal democracy is thought to be most secure, this article looks across the interconnections between different categories of environmental participation, highlighting the breadth and intensity of the shrinking of civic space in Europe, and the role of law in that.

This article argues that environmental justice extends beyond planning and decision-making to include enforcement as a critical, yet often overlooked, dimension. It advances the claim that incorporating environmental justice into enforcement law and policy is essential for addressing structural inequalities and promoting accountability in environmental governance. The primary objective of the article is to identify environmental justice guidelines embedded in enforcement frameworks, with the aim of strengthening the role of justice in regulatory practice and enhancing the equity and effectiveness of enforcement outcomes. The analysis focuses on three enforcement tools that reflect a flexible and responsive approach: (i) the United States’ Supplemental Environmental Projects, (ii) the United Kingdom’s Environmental Enforcement Undertakings, and (iii) Chile’s Compliance Programmes. The article draws on three sources of data: case studies, the environmental justice guidelines applicable to them, and the existing state of enforcement. It begins by examining the regulatory design of enforcement systems in the three jurisdictions; it then analyzes each tool to identify how environmental justice dimensions are integrated – or could be integrated – into their design and implementation. Finally, it assesses the practical application of these instruments, arguing that the deliberate incorporation of environmental justice considerations can improve the responsiveness, transparency, and legitimacy of enforcement mechanisms, which ultimately benefits both the environment and affected communities.

Sri Lanka’s Indigenous Vedda community, also known as Vanniyalaththo, has profound relationships with nature that are not recognized by the country’s colonial history and, subsequently, its Western-influenced legal framework. This article explores how the gap between relational Vedda laws and state-based law in Sri Lanka can be bridged. It suggests that the emerging paradigms of legal personhood and Rights of Nature, which acknowledge the more-than-instrumental values of nature, can serve as a starting point for bridging this gap. By exploring the relational ontologies of Vedda law, this article advocates broader recognition of Vedda worldviews within the existing state-based law in Sri Lanka and highlights the role of Indigenous communities as non-state actors in shaping more-than-human governance.

Indigenous activists have increasingly asserted claims of ecocide in various international legal venues. While acting separately from each other, they reflect common concerns regarding destruction of the environment, particularly with respect to the impacts of environmental damage upon Indigenous communities. In doing so, they connect Indigenous interests in the environment to discourses over ecocide. The present analysis considers the appropriateness of ecocide discourse for Indigenous peoples in the light of the latter’s diverse interests in the environment. Specifically, the analysis seeks to explore the bases for Indigenous normative concerns regarding ecocide, both with respect to its meaning and its inclusion in international criminal law. The analysis draws upon Indigenous studies literature to develop a heuristic framework for organizing Indigenous perspectives, through which it is possible to clarify Indigenous arguments on ecocide. In doing so, the analysis furthers engagement with Indigenous approaches to ecocide in ways that assist descriptive understanding and prescriptive reflections addressing Indigenous concerns.