Private ‘bottom-up’ enforcement has been central to the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote effective compliance with its ambitious environmental laws. This approach is strengthened by the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention, which aims to democratize environmental enforcement by conferring citizens and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) with legal rights of access to environmental information, rights of public participation, and rights of access to justice (the so-called ‘Aarhus mechanisms’). This article empirically assesses the extent to which the Aarhus mechanisms empower ENGOs to take an active role in the private enforcement of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Based on 75 surveys and 30 interviews with ENGOs from three Member States (France, Ireland, the Netherlands), we apply regulatory intermediary theory to show how European ENGOs play a vital role in intermediating between (i) EU Member States and their citizens, (ii) the EU and individual citizens, and even (iii) the EU and its Member States. We bring new empirical insights into the role of law as an enabler of regulatory intermediaries, and its potential as a tool for orchestrating regulatory intermediaries.

Based on an original database of 49 rights-based biodiversity (RBB) lawsuits filed around the world, this article hypothesizes that rights-based norms and institutions are becoming increasingly important in legal challenges aimed at biodiversity protection. We explain retrospectively the antecedents and characterize early RBB litigation by constructing a typology of cases and legal arguments that litigants and courts have used to establish the connection between biodiversity and rights protection. We then, prospectively, draw on our RBB case database and the trajectory of human rights and climate change (HRCC) litigation to anticipate likely trends, opportunities, and obstacles for future RBB cases. We posit that future RBB cases will build on the foundations laid by pioneering RBB cases, will apply lessons from HRCC litigation, and will systematically frame biodiversity loss as a rights issue.

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of rights-based climate litigation aimed at addressing climate change-induced loss and damage, underlining its potential as a transformative force amid the minimal progress towards a coordinated global response on this topic. It builds on literature highlighting the potential of rights-based climate litigation to fill the gap in accountability for climate change and its consequences, noting that research to date has not systematically analyzed the remedies that plaintiffs have sought or secured. By focusing on remedy claims, this study illuminates the capacity and the limitations of such litigation to unlock redress for loss and damage while highlighting its reciprocal relationship with international negotiations. This synergy implies a promising trajectory towards a more equitable climate governance framework, despite the complexities and challenges inherent in this rapidly evolving field.

This article studies eight cities in four countries in the southern African region (Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Botswana) to explore whether and how local governing authority has been channelled towards local climate-resilient development. The authors undertook a desk-based identification and review of available primary and secondary legal sources and normative documents while also drawing on scientific papers and policy documents for statistics and information about urbanization, climate change, politics, and governance in the selected countries. The analysis is interested in the law but is not strictly of a legal nature in the sense that the authors did not aim for a critical analysis of the regulatory detail in the relevant legal instruments. Instead, the article provides an evaluation of the political, de facto choices made by selected local governments as to how and to what extent to utilize their governing authority (legislative and executive) towards climate-resilient development. The authors explore if and how local government powers in the four southern African countries are currently leveraged for local climate action, and comment on the possible reasons for the status quo by comparing the four jurisdictions.

In recent years, China has expanded its national weather modification programme to exploit climatic resources and adapt to climate change. The unprecedented scale of China's weather modification programmes has raised concerns over potential environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts. This article analyzes the domestic governance of weather modification in China and the extent to which this legal framework satisfies China's obligations under customary international law to minimize risks of significant transboundary harm. We find that existing arrangements do not satisfy procedural obligations under customary international law; nor do they adequately address the risks of environmental impacts associated with the increased use of weather modification. Procedures for transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA) and engagement with regional neighbours are needed for China to comply with international law and promote stability in the region.

‘Mainstreaming’ climate change by embedding climate change considerations in government policies, processes, and operations can bolster the realization of climate mitigation and adaptation goals and reduce risks of counter-productive actions. Some climate laws around the world now contain explicit mainstreaming duties, in parallel with emissions reduction targets and adaptation planning requirements. This article proposes a conceptual model for climate change mainstreaming in government, with two pillars. Firstly, it defines objectives of climate mainstreaming, emphasizing that mainstreaming activities occur along a spectrum of ambition towards a goal of ‘mature mainstreaming’. Secondly, it proposes three complementary pathways to mature mainstreaming – regulatory, institutional, and capacity and capability-building pathways – to classify mainstreaming activities, and barriers to and enablers of mainstreaming. Grounded in empirical insights from a leading jurisdiction (Victoria, Australia), the model can assist governments to clearly articulate mainstreaming objectives and to identify, prioritize, and monitor mainstreaming initiatives to help in achieving their climate policy goals.

Law plays an important role in reshaping and enforcing governance efforts in radical shifts and can function as a catalyst for transitioning governance towards sustainability. This article assesses the capacity of law to facilitate decarbonization as a radical societal shift. It argues that decarbonization demands fundamental and systemic restructuring in law and legal thinking. This should also be reflected in legal scholarship and, most importantly from the point of view of this article, in the methodological choices and approaches that legal scholarship relies on to study societal challenges. To that end, the article develops a new methodological approach (disciplinary comparison) through which to study law's capacities in respect of decarbonization as a radical societal shift. Disciplinary comparison can be used to gain information on both the friction and the synergies between legal disciplines. This new methodological approach will contribute to increasing insight into law's capacities for the radical, cross-sectoral change necessitated by the need to decarbonize societies.

Against the backdrop of failing environmental governance, rights of nature (RoN) are lauded as the paradigm shift needed to transform law's approach to nature. RoN have been increasingly proclaimed at the domestic level but remain mostly absent from international law. As examined in this article, this is notably as a result of some profound incompatibilities between international law and RoN, including the fact that most international treaties approach nature as a resource to be owned, exploited or protected for the sake of humans. However, despite this dominant approach to nature, some areas of international law, notably under the leadership of Indigenous peoples, are starting to acknowledge a more relational approach to nature, putting forward concepts of care, kinship, and representation of nature in international law. Building on these developments, this article offers a reflection on potential synergies between RoN and international law, specifically by changing the latter's approach to nature. It argues that some of the RoN concepts concerning duty of care, institutional representation of nature's voice, and ecocentrism could serve as a platform to reinterpret some of the anthropocentric principles of international law, creating some potential synergies between RoN and international law.