False Sanctuary: the Australian Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and Long-Term Stability in Antarctica

The recent assertion of maritime adjudicative jurisdiction by Australian courts over a Japanese whaling company for acts contrary to Australian law in the Antarctic Southern Ocean is alarming. Private litigation, based on an internationally disputed claim to sovereignty over Antarctic territory and a further contested claim to an EEZ appurtenant to that territory, ought not to serve as a proxy for cooperative (and hopefully effective) international management of the Antarctic environment. The big danger is that if other states follow Australia\u27s lead in claiming sovereign rights and exercising attendant jurisdiction the chances of natural resource over-exploitation and environmental harm in the Antarctic is increased. It will, I believe, in the long run exacerbate the likelihood of a scramble for important, scarce and economically viable resources

The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and the Future of International Environmental Protection

This opinion piece addresses concerns about the suitability of the continuing use of sustainable development as a concept around which to organize international environmental protection. Despite advances made in international environmental law over the last 40 years, progress in abating global greenhouse gas continues to be slow, and predictions about global average temperature increases remain disturbing. The upcoming GEO5 publication based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Environmental Outlook data portal reveals that prospects for improvements in global environmental standards are grim. Some of the challenges facing the advancement of international environmental law can be largely attributed to inefficiencies associated with treaty congestion; however, there is a more fundamental reason why international environmental law remains ineffective. There has been little, if any, progress because we have been focusing solely on the concept of sustainable development for the last quarter century. It is clear that ‘sustainable development’ has become too malleable a theory to serve its vital purpose. Consequently, it needs to be replaced with a straightforward title for the environmental movement. The international community needs to reconsider its approach in dealing with today’s pressing environmental concerns

False Sanctuary: the Australian Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and Long-Term Stability in Antarctica

The recent assertion of maritime adjudicative jurisdiction by Australian courts over a Japanese whaling company for acts contrary to Australian law in the Antarctic Southern Ocean is alarming. Private litigation, based on an internationally disputed claim to sovereignty over Antarctic territory and a further contested claim to an EEZ appurtenant to that territory, ought not to serve as a proxy for cooperative (and hopefully effective) international management of the Antarctic environment. The big danger is that if other states follow Australia\u27s lead in claiming sovereign rights and exercising attendant jurisdiction the chances of natural resource over-exploitation and environmental harm in the Antarctic is increased. It will, I believe, in the long run exacerbate the likelihood of a scramble for important, scarce and economically viable resources

The Thirty-Percent Solution and the Future of International Environmental Law

It is a genuine pleasure to contribute to this collection of review essays on Daniel Bodansky’s The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law (hereinafter Art and Craft) organized by the Santa Clara Journal of International Law. Dan Bodansky has been toiling in the field of contemporary international environmental law and policy for over twenty-five years, a true pioneer. His academic efforts and professional contributions have helped firmly establish the area in the corpus of international law. His sapient analysis across a wide spectrum of regimes and issues, especially those associated with climate change, has often illuminated the way forward. Art and Craft marks a major multidisciplinary explanation of the complexities behind the variegated operation of international environmental law in its political, economic, and social contexts.No Full Tex

Problems in Human Rights and Transboundary Pollution

This case study was intended to be included in Anton & Shelton, Environmental Problems and Human Rights (Cambridge, 2011), but space limitations forced its omission from the printed text. Using the Application Instituting Proceedings in the International Court of Justice case involving Arial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Columbia) [2008] ICJ 4-28 General List No. 138 (March 31, 2008)(footnote omitted), this case study raises questions associated with human rights and international environmental law

Problems in Human Rights and Large Dams

This case study was intended to be included in Anton & Shelton, Environmental Problems and Human Rights (Cambridge, 2011), but space limitations forced its omission from the printed text. Among large infrastructure projects, damming rivers to provide hydroelectric power have been the source of considerable conflict between governments and the people who are affected by such projects, especially those forced to relocate. In many instances dams are built in pristine natural areas, destroying or degrading nature reserves, indigenous lands and/or archaeological sites. Increasing opposition to large dams has resulted in national and international litigation, as well as substantial changes in the practices of international financial institutions. This case study looks at the case of the Narmada dam in India, as it has evolved over time in response to public action, national litigation, and challenges to World Bank financing. In reading these materials, consider the following issues: (1) In developing countries, do the benefits of flood control and the provision of renewable energy outweigh the environmental and human rights impacts of large dams? (2) Can equal or greater benefits be achieved by alternative development projects that have fewer negative impacts on the environment and human rights? (3) By what procedures and substantive measures can the negative impacts be avoided or mitigated? (4) Even if there are considerable benefits to hydroelectric projects, should certain locations be off-limits to the construction of large dams? If so, what are the relevant criteria by which to decide? (5) How should the rights of local communities and indigenous populations be safeguarded