Arctic governance has entered a period of turmoil following the March 2022 Arctic Council pause in operations and, subsequently, the strained relations between the member states. As climate change dramatically alters the Arctic environment, opening the region to new economic possibilities and more global attention, the need for cooperation is greater than ever. This article examines the current geopolitical and environmental pressures that are undermining the Arctic Council’s legitimacy and operations at a critical juncture in Arctic governance. It contends that the Arctic Council must rethink how it engages with Arctic Council observers and the wider global community to ensure that pressing ecological, economic, and social issues are addressed judiciously to prevent potentially irreparable harm in the region. Specifically, the case is made that a shift to “inclusive regionalism” could secure the Arctic Council’s position as the pre-eminent forum to address Arctic issues and to re-establish the spirit of collaboration that reigned for a quarter century.

While many investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) proceedings based on international investment agreements have dealt, directly or incidentally, with environmental issues, state measures relating to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change have been subject to a small number of reported cases. This article demonstrates that there is a significant gap between the number of investor-state disputes having a direct relevance with climate change, on the one hand, and the number of such cases that have actually raised climate change as a material legal or factual issue. In addition, arbitral tribunals faced with disputes related to measures or sectors that are of direct relevance to climate action have, to date, virtually never engaged in any sort of substantial analysis of international climate change treaties and related instruments, rules, or practices. Against this backdrop, this article will explore ways for arbitrators and parties to ISDS proceedings to better consider the climate regime — in particular, the Paris Agreement and instruments arising therefrom — in ISDS proceedings beyond its current limited role as an element of context. While the literature has mostly focused on integrating climate change concerns in ISDS, this article goes further by exploring how states’ international climate obligations could play a greater role in the adjudication of investor-state disputes, including by providing states with a justification for implementing more ambitious regulations as well as tribunals with guidance for interpreting substantive obligations in investment treaties.

The text of the US Constitution appears to require that individual states, to the extent that they are ever allowed to conclude agreements with foreign governments, must obtain congressional approval. In practice, however, states conclude many agreements with foreign governments, including with Canada and its provinces, and they almost never seek congressional approval. This practice is an illustration of both the importance of federalism in US foreign relations and the significant role played by historical practice in informing US constitutional interpretation. The phenomenon of state international agreements assumed new prominence in 2019 when the Trump administration sued to challenge a climate change agreement that the state of California had made with Québec. Despite this challenge, for the most part, neither Congress nor the executive branch has resisted the growth in state international agreements. This acquiescence could change as countries like China target US states in an effort to work around strained relations with the US national government and as states become more assertive in resisting the national government’s foreign policies. In any event, the practice of state international agreements unapproved by Congress rests in part on a distinction between binding and non-binding agreements that deserves greater scrutiny under both domestic and international law.

This article deals with the sea level rise phenomenon caused by the climate change process and its impact on the statehood of so-called disappearing island states as well as on the consequent factual and legal status of their populations. In classical international law doctrine, the loss of a state’s territory will lead to the extinction of statehood and, consequently, the loss of that state’s international legal personality, and possibly also to the statelessness of its nationals. This article proposes an alternative solution based on the transformation of disappearing island states into new non-territorial subjects of international law — “climate deterritorialized nations” — as successors to disappeared inundated states.

In 2016, Rwanda began extracting methane gas from Lake Kivu, an innovative project designed to reduce the risk of a deadly spontaneous gas release while providing clean and renewable power to an energy-strapped region. Based on qualitative research in Rwanda from 2016 to 2019, Doughty, Uwizeye, and Uwimana use the Kivu methane extraction project to ask, How do we balance urgent electrification needs with responsible energy policies that respond to environmental risks, particularly in post-conflict contexts? Analyzing the Kivu methane projects as “green extractive humanitarianism” provides cautions within the promises of sustainability and “green capitalism.”

This article takes stock of the contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to the development of international environmental law. It examines in this regard the jurisdiction of the tribunal and provides an overview of its environmental jurisprudence. It then assesses the potential role of ITLOS in relation to some marine environmental challenges ahead. In particular, it considers the possibility of a request for an advisory opinion on climate change, the settlement of disputes regarding deep seabed mining, and the potential role of the tribunal under a new legal instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

This essay introduces some research and pedagogical issues relevant to the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda into academic criminology, especially concerning teaching and learning about these issues in the context of climate change. Academic criminology should not hesitate to take on board the normative dimension of socio-economic development. Certainly, the 2030 United Nations Agenda is a very fitting case in point.