Full powers is a document produced as evidence that the person named in it is authorised to represent their state in performing certain acts in relation to the conclusion of a treaty, in particular its signature. The production of full powers is a fundamental safeguard for other states that they are dealing with a person with the necessary authority. It should be distinguished from credentials which authorise a person to represent a state at an international conference, in an organisation, or in ordinary bilateral relations with another state. Full powers are not required for heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers. Full powers may also be dispensed with by the states concerned if it appears from their practice or other circumstances that it was their intention to consider the person as representing the state for such purposes. A state may issue its permanent representative to an international organisation with general full powers, which gives authority for that person to sign treaties generally adopted within that organisation. The content and procedure for the issue of full powers is discussed.

Indigenous peoples in Canada score far worse on indicators of well-being than the general public due to historical and ongoing processes of colonisation. It is also well recognised that Indigenous peoples are the most impacted and vulnerable populations affected by climate change. Currently proposed climate change ‘solutions’ are derived from the same Western colonial mindset which caused the crisis in the first place, so it is logical that we look for alternative approaches. Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) have allowed Indigenous peoples to survive centuries of environmental degradation brought about by European colonisation, as well as thrive for millennia. International declarations have specifically recognised the potential of IKS to help alleviate climate and other environmental crises. Indigenous peoples must therefore be enabled to undergo decolonisation processes, so that we may all benefit from the revitalisation of Indigenous ways of relating to the Earth in mutually beneficial ways.

A movement is gathering to overthrow the intellectual incumbents of economics. Started by students, advanced by academics, and funded by philanthropists, until recently it has remained largely unnoticed by governments. Now the world’s largest emerging economies are starting to take an interest. For the sake of avoiding dangerous climate change, the revolution cannot come too soon.

The Paris Agreement on climate change has been widely hailed as a diplomatic triumph, but it commits its signatories only to a process, not to anything of substance. It represents a gamble: that if enough governments say they will act, they will believe each other and have the confidence to move forward – and that businesses and investors will believe them too. Six years later, the gamble appears to be succeeding, but despite this, progress is nowhere near fast enough. Global emissions of greenhouse gases are still going up.

The chapter assesses the effectiveness of the ICJ. The authors set out an evaluative framework for assessing the Court’s effectiveness, adopting a goals-based analysis. They identify the ICJ’s goals, and then consider the structural features of the Court that assist and hinder it from achieving those goals. By reference to specific examples, the authors then consider whether the ICJ has achieved its goals in practice, concluding that its record of achievement produces mixed results, but highlighting the Court’s success in preserving confidence in international adjudication.

This chapter explains the Court’s significant role as the ‘master of the sources’ of international law. The author considers what he defines as the ‘repressive dimension of Article 38’, before turning to consider the ways in which the Court has concretely used its role in respect of the sources of international law. Finally, the chapter critically examines how repression and mastery can often work together in international legal thought.

In the context of current environmental crises, which threaten to seriously harm living conditions for future generations, liberal–capitalist democracies have been accused of inherent short-termism, that is, of favouring the currently living at the expense of mid- to long-term sustainability. This chapter reviews some of the reasons for this short-termism as well as proposals as to how best to represent future people in today’s democratic decision-making. It then presents some ideas of the author as to how to reconceive the idea of democracy and the responsibilities of citizenship in the face of increasing obligations to sustain both the environment and democratic institutions for future people. The chapter argues that taking turns between governing and governed is a key dimension of democracy, and that it implies in-principle consent to others governing after our turn, including future generations. Thus, future people must be better represented than they generally are today, in particular when democratic institutions find themselves squeezed between an overburdened environment in which they are embedded, and a fast-paced and short-termist globalising economy.

The International Court of Justice held its first sitting on 18 April 1946 and heard its first two cases in 1948: it heard preliminary objections in The Corfu Channel Case from late February to early March, and it held hearings in the advisory opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) in late April. Those first two cases were emblematic of the kinds of disputes that the Court would eventually hear and resolve as part of its ordinary caseload: they both dealt with practical issues, with significant political implications, and were an opportunity for the Court to provide guidance to the broader international community on disputed issues of international law. They provided the Court with scope to fulfil its mandate as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations; to function as a prominent interpreter of international law, as it is used and applied in practice. As international law has become more present in global policy-making and in academic and journalistic commentary, the International Court has come to occupy an essential and increasingly visible role in international relations, and has exercised jurisdiction over a significant number of international disputes addressing the same matters as are being wrestled with in the halls of the United Nations, and in ministries of foreign affairs across the world, and are being discussed as leading stories in international newspapers.

This chapter introduces the reflection in the book and the work of the ESG Workgroup on the Representations and Rights of the Environment (ESGRREW), with its intercultural and interdisciplinary process of Research & Dialogue: a critical appraisal of how humankind conceive its relationship with the environment, towards a clear vision of how to apprehend it in law and governance. The reflection takes heed of the change in vision in different fields of knowledge and the message of Indigenous peoples with other critical voices regarding humankind’s present predicament. It champions social and environmental justice, and highlights the crisis of representations and perception of our world. Rekindling the conscience of diversity of languages, cultures and modes of knowing and being, it advocates a wide and relational approach, considering lived experience. It contends that we need to remove ‘barriers to understanding’, create and nurture a common space towards a ‘new common sense’. Reconnecting with other legal traditions will contribute to rethinking legal frameworks and practices for a new legal consciousness.