This article investigates dynamics of mobilization over environmental and human rights norms in the context of undemocratic governments. We test the suggestion in norm diffusion theories that the success of domestic struggles in this context depends on the level of internalization of norms brought about by international pressure. We find that the internalization (or lack thereof) of global norms by the Government of Sudan does not explain its recognition of environmental justice claims in this case. Furthermore, the various litigation efforts pursued by affected people outside Sudan did not influence their campaign. However, a combination of the political climate in the country and a unique political interplay between the government and a distinct group of the affected people may have led to the singular success of their campaign. We use a combination of discourse analysis, legal analysis, norm mapping, and semi-structured interviews to reach conclusions.

This article examines the international legitimacy of unilateral dam development in an international watercourse from the perspective of international water law. Drawing upon technical analysis over the Harirud River Basin, the article discusses probable negative impacts of unilateral dam development in Afghanistan on downstream Iran and Turkmenistan. Competing claims are analyzed to assess emerging transboundary damage under customary international water law. Applying these insights to the case study, this article explores how legal norms and principles can contribute to transboundary water cooperation. It investigates how equitable and reasonable utilization, as required by the United Nations Watercourse Convention, could be reached and whether current activities are in conformity with international norms. Based on this analysis and in the light of international customary law, the article questions the compatibility of unilateral control and capture of water resources in Afghanistan, particularly through the Salma Dam, with ‘equitable and reasonable utilization’ and ‘no significant harm’ rules. The article also argues that building the Salma Dam results in significant transboundary harm to downstream states. Hence, such harm could be considered as significant transboundary damage. Conclusions point to an understanding of water law as a form of institutional guidance in order to provide a transparent setting for transboundary water cooperation among riparian states.

A number of European Union (EU) countries have undertaken thorough reforms in the renewable energy sector over the past years. The regulatory changes have triggered a wave of claims from low-carbon investors asserting that the reforms have diminished or exhausted the economic viability of their investments. Unlike local investors, who typically take legal action before domestic courts, foreign investors have filed arbitration claims in accordance with the Energy Charter Treaty, notably against Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic, resulting in several awards of damages. However, recent developments in EU state aid law seem to restrict the ability of investors to obtain compensation. This article argues that such developments may undermine renewable energy policy, because arbitration enhances the regulatory stability and predictability which low-carbon investments require only if arbitral awards can be enforced effectively. The article examines the different scenarios that may arise out of the interplay between EU law and investment arbitration in the EU and concludes that the European Commission's arguable redrawing of the boundaries of state aid rules to encompass investment arbitration, combined with the EU's general quest to replace investment arbitration with alternative mechanisms of adjudication, may jeopardize climate change mitigation policies.

Recent technological advancements are facilitating the use of satellite remote-sensing techniques for the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions. This article evaluates the potential for these satellite-enabled measurements to contribute to transparency and answerability for state emissions, with a focus on international space law and policy, and the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We show that in the context of the international space governance framework, the dissemination of integrated emissions data sets has the potential to enhance public answerability for the mitigation performance of states. Under the Paris Agreement, there is scope for space-based measurement techniques to provide an independent data source to support verification activities for national emissions inventories, and for aggregated data to be utilized as part of the global stocktake under Article 14. There are, however, a number of impediments to translating these transparency gains into enhanced answerability for states’ emissions reduction pledges.

Formally adopted in 2012, environmental public interest litigation in China has expanded standing beyond individual rights by granting administrative authorities, procuratorates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the ability to initiate environmental public interest litigation (PIL). However, the aims of enhancing the enforcement of environmental regulation and the development of the ‘objective legality’ model through civil society have not been met. This is as a result of administrative authorities and procuratorates being granted standing, which inhibits NGOs from initiating their own PIL in line with the aims of the ‘objective legality’ model. In order to promote participation by civil society and its actors in environmental law enforcement, NGOs should be granted preferential standing in environmental PIL. To this end, the current requirements for NGOs to be granted standing should be relaxed, and the standing granted to administrative authorities and procuratorates should be limited or removed.

While legal scholarship seeks mainly to assess the impact of climate change litigation (CCL) on the regulatory state and on climate change policy in common law countries, the potential influence of government climate policy on the judicial practices of jurisdictions with different legal traditions attracts much less attention. This article fills the gaps by exploring how courts in China, an authoritarian country with a civil law tradition, react to government climate policies and how this judicial response might affect relevant legal rules and eventually contribute to climate regulation. An empirical analysis of 177 Chinese judicial cases reveals that CCL in China consists mostly of contract-based civil actions steered by the government's low-carbon policies. Moreover, although the prospects of CCL against public authorities in China remain very bleak, there is scope for the emergence of tort-based CCL, backed by government policies. In this respect, recent tort-based public interest litigation on air pollution in China may serve as a substitute or, more promisingly, a gateway to the emergence of a tort-based branch of Chinese CCL.