•  
  •  
 

Authors

Milena Sterio

Abstract

This Article analyzes international and regional court cases and requests for advisory opinions regarding the scope of states’ obligations under international law to protect the environment and mitigate the effects of climate change. In fact, such cases have been decided, or are pending, before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In addition, similar cases have been litigated before domestic jurisdictions, in the courts of the United States, Germany, and Colombia. These cases–parallel proceedings–have the potential to clarify the scope of states’ obligations to protect the environment under international law, human rights law, and the law of the sea. At the same time, these cases can result in conflicting or inconsistent rulings; this negative outcome could cause further confusion in international law and allow states to ignore any obligations to protect the environment in reliance on such confusion. This Article will discuss the cases mentioned above to address how the outcome of these cases could lead to either the development of international environmental law or to fragmentation. To the extent that the outcomes of these environmental cases are consistent with each other, this could lead toward the elaboration of more specific norms of environmental law, which would result in concrete state obligations to protect the environment by mitigating the effects of climate change through regulatory frameworks. Yet, if the outcomes of these cases are conflicting, this could lead to significant fragmentation. This Article will discuss the risks of such fragmentation and propose ways in which such risks could be mitigated – through the development of soft law instruments such as guidelines on environmental protection and through regional efforts and initiatives.



Share

COinS