Search

This article categorizes and evaluates how regulatory regimes conceptualize plastics, and how such conceptualizations affect the production, consumption, and disposal of plastics. Taking a doctrinal and policy-oriented approach, it identifies four ‘frames’ – that is, four distinct and coherent sets of meanings attributed to plastics within transnational regulation – namely, plastics as waste to be managed; a material to be prevented; a good (or waste) to be traded freely; and inputs or outputs in production-consumption systems. Based on this analysis, three significant deficiencies in the transnational regulation of plastics are identified: the failure to frame plastics in terms of environmental justice and human rights issues; insufficient focus on plastics prevention (rather than management); and the role of law in reinforcing its production and consumption.

A shift to a circular economy is essential, and regulation can play a critical role in this transition. In this paper we examine the regulatory frameworks required to promote a circular economy (CE) for textiles through a qualitative analysis of data from Australian and international contexts. Supporting the transition to a CE requires an optimal policy mix that includes direct regulation, self-regulation, voluntary initiatives, education approaches, and economic instruments, such as subsidies and incentives. Using an inductive, interpretive approach to qualitative analysis, we analysed the submissions and Standing Committee sessions of the Commonwealth Government’s 2019-20 Inquiry into Australia’s Waste Management and Recycling Industries and identified the regulatory approaches for which different stakeholder groups are advocating. Public, industry and recyclers all advocate first for economic instruments, with industry bodies next advocating for self-regulation, while both the public and recycling industry next recommend education initiatives. Alongside, our analysis draws on the regulatory approaches of Australia and other nations, as captured in a sample of international government and NGO reports and working papers. We find that Australia’s current regulatory system focuses primarily on normative education and information documents, with fragmented economic and co-regulation on a state-by-state level. Through this analysis, we propose a holistic policy mix that codifies a circular economy approach to textile waste governance and make a series of regulatory recommendations appropriate to the Australian context.

Both international soil and forest governance lack common definitions, legally binding obligations, authoritative institutions, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and data collection. Although the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary institution driving global change in soil and forest practices, it does not have the mandate to comprehensively regulate upon soil, forest and deforestation issues. Soils are a forgotten resource of international law and the current focus at the international level is to raise awareness of the value of soil with existing international environmental law tending to incidentally but not specifically create obligations to better manage, enhance and restore soils. Forests, in comparison, are not forgotten but rather have been a resource of much contestation within international environmental law. As such, states have avoided creating a legally binding agreement on forests, which has resulted in a proliferation of multiple soft law instruments setting standards for forest use and management. The interconnectedness of soils and forests is not currently recognised within international environmental law and this chapter argues that any future reforms to address soil and forest global governance must be holistic in nature and focus upon harmonising existing initiatives rather than creating a new, separate regime.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, law classrooms around the world underwent a major shift to transition rapidly to online learning as a result of campus closures and lockdowns. Learning in Law Schools was (and in some places still is) largely being undertaken online. This chapter will explore the impact of ‘emergency remote teaching’ on law student engagement and present the findings of a project undertaken in 2020 in a period during the pandemic when students were learning wholly online. The project sought to understand how student engagement was impacted by online learning. It provides insights into how law teachers and law schools can learn from the experience to enhance the law curriculum by adopting student centred and innovative approaches to online teaching.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, law schools in Australia and around the world were forced to transition rapidly to online learning due to campus closures and lockdowns. The resulting ‘emergency remote teaching’ or ‘pandemic pedagogy’ had a significant impact on the student experience, with the national Student Experience Survey showing a marked reduction in how students rated their experience, with the largest drop being in learner engagement. In this paper we will explore the effect of ‘emergency remote teaching’ on law student engagement and present the findings of a project undertaken in 2020 in a period during the pandemic when students were learning wholly online. In this study we sought specifically to understand how student engagement was influenced by online learning. We will provide insights into how law teachers and law schools can learn from the experience to enhance the law curriculum by adopting student centred and innovative approaches to online and blended teaching. While emergency remote teaching presented many challenges to student engagement, for students who had high academic self-efficacy there were considerable benefits in the flexibility of online learning. In contrast, many students, particularly those who did not have well developed independent learning skills, felt overwhelmed by the experience. They reported feeling isolated and missed the sense of belonging and connection created by the campus experience, including interacting with peers and teachers both in classroom settings and informal settings. Where teachers were caring, supportive and enthusiastic, this led to an increase in student engagement. However, where teachers were unfamiliar with the use of the e-learning tools, or where students were not confident themselves in using the tools, engagement was negatively affected. We argue that after the pandemic is over, law schools should encourage teachers to continue using e-learning tools where they are educationally appropriate to provi

The regulation of environmental impacts from agriculture can take place at various scales. In some nations, with federal systems of government, the multiscale nature of regulatory interventions can be confusing for farmers, not to mention costly and time-consuming to navigate. Regulatory overlap contributes to inefficiency and wastage in governance efforts, reduced trust in government action and can preclude positive environmental outcomes across the landscape. In this article, we explore how Australia’s national-level law has been applied to agricultural land use. We canvas the concepts of regulatory complexity and ambiguity, and argue for a more integrated and flexible policy mix that rewards positive behaviour and stewardship of natural capital. This model would provide financial and other personal gains for those who can demonstrate objectives are being met. Further empirical research on fine-tuning that policy mix, again across scale, is warranted.