Lithium in international law: trade, investment, and the pursuit of supply chain justice

Projected demand for renewable energy storage has underlined the importance of lithium-ion batteries, reflected in concern over ‘supply chain security’ for critical minerals. Yet, other voices have called for ‘supply chain justice’ among governments, firms, and communities affected by the social and environmental externalities of lithium extraction. To anticipate disputes and draw a baseline for further research, this article surveys the relevant rules of international law that presently regulate major operations of the lithium industry. First, the material dimensions of lithium are transformed into a workable object of international law, focusing on viable reserves (as opposed to all proven resources) and the analytical priority of territorial jurisdiction. Second, the regulatory regimes of four States with major reserves—Chile,Australia, Argentina, and China—illustrate recurring challenges, such as incentivizing investment in value-added production and the discontent of Indigenous communities. Third, the trade and investment treaties of these States help us to map an international legal framework for the lithium industry, focusing on the World Trade Organization, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. But such treaties may be interpreted in light of a State’s obligations concerning human rights, environmental protection, and Indigenous peoples, giving legal form to the pursuit of supply chain justice in the energy transition

Unjust enrichment in investor–State arbitration: a principled limit on compensation for future income from fossil fuels

If States take seriously the Paris Agreement's mitigation goal by phasing out the use of fossil fuels in energy production, investor–State arbitration could allow claimants to recoup lost value. In awards of compensation, tribunals typically apply forward-looking, income-based valuation methods to quantify future cash flows. But such methods may lead to upward redistribution of wealth and expansion of fossil fuel production. This article recalls the prohibition against unjust enrichment as a general principle of law that complements the obligation to make full reparation by ensuring that any compensation does not undermine some legally recognized allocation of benefits and burdens. The Paris Agreement's distributive scheme may thus impose a principled limit on compensation for future income from stranded fossil fuel assets when a tribunal determines the appropriate method of valuation, thereby ensuring that investor–State arbitration does not enrich claimants to the detriment of State capacity in climate mitigation and adaptation

Polyferrocenylsilanes:synthesis, properties, and applications

This comprehensive review covers polyferrocenylsilanes (PFSs), a well-established, readily accessible class of main chain organosilicon metallopolymer. The focus is on the recent advances involving PFS homopolymers and block copolymers and the article covers the synthesis, properties, and applications of these fascinating materials.</p

Unjust enrichment in investor–State arbitration: A principled limit on compensation for future income from fossil fuels

Funder: Woolf Fisher Scholarship, Cambridge TrustIf States take seriously the Paris Agreement's mitigation goal by phasing out the use of fossil fuels in energy production, investor–State arbitration could allow claimants to recoup lost value. In awards of compensation, tribunals typically apply forward‐looking, income‐based valuation methods to quantify future cash flows. But such methods may lead to upward redistribution of wealth and expansion of fossil fuel production. This article recalls the prohibition against unjust enrichment as a general principle of law that complements the obligation to make full reparation by ensuring that any compensation does not undermine some legally recognized allocation of benefits and burdens. The Paris Agreement's distributive scheme may thus impose a principled limit on compensation for future income from stranded fossil fuel assets when a tribunal determines the appropriate method of valuation, thereby ensuring that investor–State arbitration does not enrich claimants to the detriment of State capacity in climate mitigation and adaptation