Seventy Years of History as Seen Through German Courts
Access, Benefit-sharing and Conservation in Indigenous Lands
Edited by Gudmundur Alfredsson and Timo Koivurova
- human rights issues, such as autonomy and self-government vs. self-determination, the rights of indigenous peoples to land and natural resources and cultural rights and cultural heritage, indigenous traditional knowledge,
- local, national, regional and international governance issues,
- environmental law, climate change, security and environment implications of climate change, protected areas and species,
- regulatory, governance and management agreements and arrangements for marine environments, marine mammals, fisheries conservation and other biological/mineral/oil resources,
- law of the sea, the retreating sea ice, continental shelf claims,
- territorial claims and border disputes on both land and at sea,
- peace and security, dispute settlement,
- jurisdictional and other issues with regard to the exploration, exploitation and shipping of oil, gas and minerals, bio prospecting,
- trade law, potential shipping lines through the northwest and northeast passages, maritime law and transportation law, and
- the roles and actual involvement of international organisations in the Polar Regions, such as the Arctic Council, the Antarctic Treaty System, the European Union, the International Whaling Commission, the Nordic Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the United Nations, as well as NGOs.
The papers in this volume are based on presentations at the 10th Polar Law Symposium, held in Rovaniemi in November 2017.
Synergies between the Watercourses Convention and the World Bank Policies and Practice
Salman M.A. Salman
The Global Stocktake compels states periodically to focus on the Paris Agreement’s ultimate aims. Without it, each state’s attention would have been fixated on its own Nationally Determined Contribution and little else. The Paris Rulebook clarifies how the stocktaking mechanism is to function—in all but one respect: although the rules keep the emphasis squarely on “collective progress” as the proper object of the stocktake’s assessment, the text is ambiguous on whether its implied opposite—individual state progress—is to be excluded from the assessment. The ambiguity rides mainly on the notion of “equity”—a term as dutifully inserted into key passages of the Rulebook as its explanation is studiously avoided. Whatever the negotiators may have intended in this respect, an objective construction of the Rulebook shows that an assessment of the individual progress of states is permitted to occupy a substantial part of the stocktaking process, except when it comes to formal reporting on the stocktake’s outputs. The non-exclusion of individual assessment from the dialogue that powers the stocktake means that, while the ideology of “national self-determination” may have succeeded in turning out an Article 15 Committee of unprecedented blandness, it has neglected to defend its flanks in the Global Stocktake, making for an unpredictable, yet potentially useful process.
EU climate law has come to consist of many rules and court decisions. Given its breadth, complexity, and dynamic nature, it is a huge challenge for scholars to acquire a good overview, let alone develop a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the law. It should not be taboo to concede that hard-working scholars may fall short of having a thorough appreciation of the “state of the art” of EU climate law. Because of this, not only prioritization but also cooperation among scholars is necessary. While legal research can point to problems and shortcomings in EU climate law, it should at the same time delve on the importance of having a body of EU climate law leading to emission reductions that most likely would not have been achieved if the EU member states had had to decide on this objective individually.
Gu Zihua, Christina Voigt and Jacob Werksman
This article provides a comprehensive overview of the modalities and procedures for the effective operation of the committee tasked to facilitate implementation of, and promote compliance with, the provisions of the Paris Agreement. This is done in the context of the negotiation history and the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement. The article explains how the Committee is expected to function, the situations that trigger its proceedings, and the outcomes that can be expected. The article also explores the linkages to other processes and mechanisms under the Paris Agreement, especially the Enhanced Transparency Framework, and explains how the Committee will add value to the Paris Agreement’s architecture.
Nationally Determined Contributions play a critical role in the architecture of the Paris Agreement. Parties are required to prepare and communicate their ndcs and to undertake domestic efforts to meet their mitigation commitments, facilitated in some cases by support and finance from other parties. The focus of this article is on key elements of the five-year cycle that deal with the content and process of ndcs, specifically the portion of the Paris Rulebook on the communication of ndcs and the accounting for their implementation. The article concludes that while the basics appear to be in place, there are a number of gaps and uncertainties that may result in implementation challenges.