Search

I. INTRODUCTION In August 2015, just a few months before the international negotiations that led to conclusion of the Paris Agreement, (1) a Pakistani farmer, Mr. Ashgar Leghari, filed a [...], Since the conclusion of the Paris Agreement, climate litigation has become a global phenomenon, casting courts as important players in multilevel climate governance. However, most climate litigation scholarship focuses on court actions in the Global North. This Article is the first to shine a light on the Global South's contribution to transnational climate litigation. Analysis of this experience is essential if transnational climate jurisprudence is to contribute meaningfully to global climate governance, and to ensuring just outcomes for the most climate-vulnerable.

The authors discuss the draft articles presented by the International Law Commission on state responsibility, reflecting on changes made from the first to the second draft and outstanding issues.

Current greenhouse gas emissions will continue to affect the climate even after we reach net-zero emissions. We must understand how and prepare for a cooling planet.

Conventionally the private sector has been considered a barrier to effective energy transition governance. However, in the wake of the 2015 Paris Agreement, a range of international initiatives have emerged that focus on enhancing the positive role of the private sector in energy transition governance. These developments reinforce a gradual international shift in the business community to view climate change in financial risk terms. Climate change seen as a matter of financial risk for corporations, and for the large institutional investors who invest in them, has the potential to engage corporate law tools, such as requirements for risk disclosure, shareholder actions and the fiduciary duties of company directors. This article explores the potential, and limitations, of such corporate law tools to drive private sector action on sustainable energy transition. The article draws on empirical research examining business perceptions and practices relating to climate risk management and promotion of clean energy sources. Although there are promising signs of a more serious consideration of climate risk in business decision-making, corporate practices around climate risk disclosure, and shareholder and board engagement with clean energy issues, remain highly variable and in flux. If corporate law tools are to make a more substantial contribution to energy transition governance, they will likely need to be complemented by a robust regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's climate minister, Chris Bowen, will present Australia's progress in meeting emissions cut targets and updated projections at the COP28 climate summit in the United Arab Emirates. Australia is likely to cut its emissions by 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, close to the government's legislated target. Bowen will argue that Australia can be trusted to meet its climate goals. However, Australia faces pressure to be more ambitious in setting its 2035 target and to phase down or phase out fossil fuels. Australia's position on fossil fuels remains uncertain, but Bowen sees Australia transitioning from a major fossil fuel producer to a renewable energy superpower. The country's stance on this issue will be closely watched by international observers at COP28. [Extracted from the article]

She has previously received funding from the ARC for a project on Australian and US climate litigation which led to the founding of the Australian and Pacific Climate Change Litigation database mentioned in the article. Read more:Capitalising on climate anxiety: what you need to know about "climate-washing" Australia as a climate litigation hotspot The US tops the climate litigation charts with 1,522 lawsuits filed. [Extracted from the article]

The United Nations' decision to ask the International Courtof Justice for an advisory opinion on countries' climateobligations has been hailed as a "turning point in climatejustice". Last week, the UN General Assembly supported a Pacific-ledresolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ)to provide an advisory opinion on a country's climateobligations. The UN is asking the International Court of Justice for its opinion on states' climate obligations. [Extracted from the article]

Short of a miracle, it seems unlikely the COP27 climatechange negotiations in Egypt will deliver any concreteaction on loss and damage. The costs ofrecovering from these harms, such as intensifying disasters,are climbing, and poor countries have been calling onwealthy countries to foot the bill. [Extracted from the article]

Such disasters are driving calls at the COP27 climate summit this week for rich countries to pay for the "loss and damage" poorer countries have suffered (and continue to) because of climate change. This offers low-income countries and small island developing states the ability to defer debt repayments for two years years in the event of a severe climate shock or natural disaster. It's the big issue of COP27 climate summit: poor nations face a $1 trillion "loss and damage" bill, but rich nations won't pay up. [Extracted from the article]

The more we can suppress global warming by reaching net-zero emissions as early as possible, the more we limit potential disastrous effects and the need to cool the planet in a post net-zero world. In the long-term, the best target global temperature for the planet might be something akin to a pre-industrial climate, with the human effect on Earth's climate receding. Continued net-negative emissions will cause the planet to cool as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere fall. [Extracted from the article]

The Australian government's sharp focus on climate changeis a far cry from the "climate wars" that have been aroadblock to meaningful climate policy in this countryfor the past decade. When the new federal parliament opened last week, arecord number of female politicians took their seats: 38%in the House of Representatives and 57% in the Senate.This changing of the guard, with women at the forefront,brings an opportunity to accelerate Australia's effortson climate change. [Extracted from the article]

The article highlights the international community's difficulty in addressing the problem of climate change and describes the various lawsuits at international and national level regarding mitigating the concerns related to climate change. It presents a comparative experience of the U.S. and Australia in responding to climate change and provides a model for understanding the role litigations play in common law jurisdictions.

Previously, Australia relied primarily upon stringent quarantine controls on imported plant and animal goods to prevent the entry of invasive species. However, the recent introduction of new international rules supervised by the World Trade Organisation, requiring national authorities to demonstrate a ‘sound scientific basis’ for quarantine measures implemented for plant or animal health purposes, may make it difficult for Australia to rely as heavily upon quarantine as it has done in the past. It is in this context that this article assesses the existing domestic legal and institutional framework for invasive species control as a factor of growing significance, for the management of Australia's biodiversity nd agricultural sustainability.The overview of the current Australian regulatory framework il1ustrates the widely disparate approaches to invasive species control at a state and territory level and the significant gaps and inconsistencies within each jurisdiction and across jurisdictions. In part, the disparity in regulatory approaches reflects ambiguities in the scientific term ‘invasive species’, leading to variability in the meaning of the term' invasive' when used in legislation and policy. Historically, also, the main focus of invasive species regulation has been upon the control of agricultural pests in primary industries, which produced a management framework at state government level predominantly concerned with identifying and managing single pest species in the context of agricultural production. By contrast, the Commonwealth Government's role has largely been confined to ‘indirect governance’ in the form of providing policy coordination and funding incentives. While the need to move to a holistic, environmental management, focus is clearly recognised—and there are recent efforts in this direction—the scope of the risks associated with invasive species in Australia arguably requires not only greater institutional co-ordination but also a significant change towards a nationally-led proactive regulatory approach.This article analyses the extent to which the current legislative and regulatory framework has adopted best practice environmental management principles to this end, as well as recent recommendations for an enhanced national strategy emanating, from the Senate Inquiry considering amendments to the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Cth [EPBC Act]. The Senate Inquiry recommended reforms, which while they signal a move toward a more coherent national, framework, arguably do not go far enough in addressing the growing risks posed by invasive species. In particular, the recommended reforms neglect the opportunity offered by the EPBC Act to define a decisive role, for the Common wealth invasive species regulation, guided by well-accepted environmental principles that promote long-term sustainability.