#investor-state dispute settlement

[kp777]

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

June 6, 2024

[see ISDS in Wikipedia]

A week after the European Union announced its withdrawal from the controversial Energy Charter Treaty, which has been criticized for being one of many global agreements that allow fossil fuel companies to sue governments, a coalition on Thursday released an analysis showing just how lucrative such deals have been for firms whose emissions are wrecking havoc on the planet.

The Transnational Institute, the Trade Justice Movement (TJM), Power Shift, and the Institute for Policy Studies joined forces to unveil the Global ISDS Tracker, which includes data on more than 1,300 cases that have made their way to secretive tribunals set up by investor-state dispute mechanisms in treaties including the Energy Charter Treaty.

ISDS courts allow fossil fuel companies and other large corporations to sue governments for compensation over policies that harm their profits, such as regulations to curb planet-heating emissions or air pollution, which is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.

Many judgments made by ISDS tribunals are kept secret, but the Global ISDS Tracker revealed that $114 billion in public funds have been paid out to investors across industries, with fossil fuel companies and investors raking in $80.2 billion of that.

Another $48 billion in public money is expected to go to fossil fuel firms from ISDS disputes in the coming years if current trends continue, said the groups behind the tracker.

Tom Wills, director of TJM, said the tracker proves what trade and climate justice groups have said "for years: ISDS is the secret weapon for fossil fuel companies against climate laws."

"Corporate courts are also used to threaten governments not to give in to popular local or national demands for climate action," said Wills. "This needs to be put to an end. The data shows reform is urgently needed."

The tracker includes the $15 billion compensation lawsuit filed by TC Energy against the U.S. government when President Joe Biden canceled the company's permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil each day.

The largest ISDS claim currently being adjudicated is Zeph Investment's case against the Australian government, which the firm says "effectively destroyed" its plans for a major mine, costing it $200 billion.

As Common Dreams reported last November, civil society groups have called on the Biden administration to dismantle the ISDS system within the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, with one campaigner arguing that ISDS was "created for and by powerful, well-organized corporations, and has served their interests almost exclusively."

Lucía Bárcena, trade policy officer at the Transnational Institute, said eliminating ISDS in treaties should be a top priority for trade and climate justice campaigners in the coming years.

"In this challenging moment, when there is more climate action needed from states," said Bárcena, "it is unbearable to have corporate courts that can wash all the efforts away."

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

Before the sun set on his inauguration day, Joe Biden reversed a raft of his predecessor’s deregulation policies with the stroke of a pen. Among them was an order revoking the permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. 

Canceling the project was a campaign pledge to address the climate crisis. But looming over that decision was the risk that an obscure but powerful international legal system could force the United States to pay billions of dollars to Keystone XL’s Canadian developer, TC Energy. 

That system—embedded in thousands of trade and investment treaties—allows corporations to drag governments before panels of arbitrators, usually behind closed doors. Governments have been ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages to oil and mining companies for violating those treaties. While the system was intended to protect foreign investors from unfair treatment or asset seizure, many environmental advocates, lawyers and politicians say it is now being used to win awards from governments that enact new environmental regulations or raise taxes on polluting industries.

Increasingly, these critics warn the system threatens climate action by punishing governments that phase out fossil fuels. 

The $15 billion claim TC Energy brought against the United States was one of the largest-ever in response to a climate policy. The company lost earlier this month, but the case was dismissed on a technicality and its outcome says nothing about other pending cases around the world.

Australia, Canada, Colombia and Slovenia are facing tens of billions of dollars in claims from companies for phasing out coal power plants, rejecting mining licenses or disallowing liquefied natural gas permits. In 2022, Italy was ordered to pay a British oil company roughly $200 million after offshore drilling restrictions upended the firm’s development plans. 

In other countries, the system set up for these claims—investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS—has driven up costs of closing coal power plants, prevented governments from canceling oil and gas licenses or otherwise impeded efforts to reduce fossil fuel use, government ministers and researchers say. Companies even win awards despite leaving behind environmental contamination, violating human rights or breaking national laws.

The ISDS system is uniquely daunting for governments because arbitrators overseeing the cases can award compensation not just for real losses but also for unearned, expected future profits. It’s a key reason awards can balloon into the billions of dollars. 

Governments already face numerous practical and political obstacles as they attempt to move away from fossil fuels, said Canadian lawyer and professor Gus Van Harten, who has studied ISDS’s evolution for decades. “This system is providing an unwarranted and unexpected further minefield.” 

As Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, put it in a speech this year: “I cannot overstate just how perverse this is.”

[mostlysignssomeportents]

End of the line for corporate sovereignty

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

Back in the 1950s, a new, democratically elected Iranian government nationalized foreign oil interests. The UK and the US then backed a coup, deposing the progressive government with one more hospitable to foreign corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry

This nasty piece of geopolitical skullduggery led to the mother-of-all-blowbacks: the Anglo-American puppet regime was toppled by the Ayatollah and his cronies, who have led Iran ever since.

For the US and the UK, the lesson was clear: they needed a less kinetic way to ensure that sovereign countries around the world steered clear of policies that undermined the profits of their oil companies and other commercial giants. Thus, the "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) was born.

The modern ISDS was perfected in the 1990s with the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The ECT was meant to foam the runway for western corporations seeking to take over ex-Soviet energy facilities, by making those new post-Glasnost governments promise to never pass laws that would undermine foreign companies' profits.

But as Nick Dearden writes for Jacobin, the western companies that pushed the east into the ECT failed to anticipate that ISDSes have their own form of blowback:

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change/

When the 2000s rolled around and countries like the Netherlands and Denmark started to pass rules to limit fossil fuels and promote renewables, German coal companies sued the shit out of these governments and forced them to either back off on their democratically negotiated policies, or to pay gigantic settlements to German corporations.

ISDS settlements are truly grotesque: they're not just a matter of buying out existing investments made by foreign companies and refunding them money spent on them. ISDS tribunals routinely order governments to pay foreign corporations all the profits they might have made from those investments.

For example, the UK company Rockhopper went after Italy for limiting offshore drilling in response to mass protests, and took $350m out of the Italian government. Now, Rockhopper only spent $50m on Adriatic oil exploration – the other $300m was to compensate Rockhopper for the profits it might have made if it actually got to pump oil off the Italian coast.

Governments, both left and right, grew steadily more outraged that ISDSes tied the hands of democratically elected lawmakers and subordinated their national sovereignty to corporate sovereignty. By 2023, nine EU countries were ready to pull out of the ECT.

But the ECT had another trick up its sleeve: a 20-year "sunset" clause that bound countries to go on enforcing the ECT's provisions – including ISDS rulings – for two decades after pulling out of the treaty. This prompted European governments to hit on the strategy of a simultaneous, mass withdrawal from the ECT, which would prevent companies registered in any of the ex-ECT countries from suing under the ECT.

It will not surprise you to learn that the UK did not join this pan-European coalition to wriggle out of the ECT. On the one hand, there's the Tories' commitment to markets above all else (as the Trashfuture podcast often points out, the UK government is the only neoliberal state so committed to austerity that it's actually dismantling its own police force). On the other hand, there's Rishi Sunak's planet-immolating promise to "max out North Sea oil."

But as the rest of the world transitions to renewables, different blocs in the UK – from unions to Tory MPs – are realizing that the country's membership in ECT and its fossil fuel commitment is going to make it a world leader in an increasingly irrelevant boondoggle – and so now the UK is also planning to pull out of the ECT.

As Dearden writes, the oil-loving, market-worshipping UK's departure from the ECT means that the whole idea of ISDSes is in danger. After all, some of the world's poorest countries are also fed up to the eyeballs with ISDSes and threatening to leave treaties that impose them.

One country has already pulled out: Honduras. Honduras is home to Prospera, a libertarian autonomous zone on the island of Roatan. Prospera was born after a US-backed drug kingpin named Porfirio Lobo Sosa overthrew the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The Lobo Sosa regime established a system of special economic zones (known by their Spanish acronym, "ZEDEs"). Foreign investors who established a ZEDE would be exempted from Honduran law, allowing them to create "charter cities" with their own private criminal and civil code and tax system.

This was so extreme that the Honduran supreme court rejected the plan, so Lobo Sosa fired the court and replaced them with cronies who'd back his play.

A group of crypto bros capitalized on this development, using various ruses to establish a ZEDE on the island of Roatan, a largely English-speaking, Afro-Carribean island known for its marine reserve, its SCUBA diving, and its cruise ship port. This "charter city" included every bizarre idea from the long history of doomed "libertarian exit" projects, so ably recounted in Raymond Craib's excellent 2022 book Adventure Capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/14/this-way-to-the-egress/#terra-nullius

Right from the start, Prospera was ill starred. Paul Romer, the Nobel-winning economist most closely associated with the idea of charter cities, disavowed the project. Locals hated it – the tourist shops and restaurants on Roatan all may sport dusty "Bitcoin accepted here" signs, but not one of those shops takes cryptocurrency.

But the real danger to Prospera came from democracy itself. When Xiomara Castro – wife of Manuel Zelaya – was elected president in 2021, she announced an end to the ZEDE program. Prospera countered by suing Honduras under the ISDS provisions of the Central America Free Trade Agreements, seeking $10b, a third of the country's GDP.

In response, President Castro announced her country's departure from CAFTA, and the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

An open letter by progressive economists in support of President Castro condemns ISDSes for costing latinamerican countries $30b in corporate compensation, triggered by laws protecting labor rights, vulnerable ecosystems and the climate:

https://progressive.international/wire/2024-03-18-economists-the-era-of-corporate-supremacy-in-the-international-trade-system-is-coming-to-an-end/en

As Ryan Grim writes for The Intercept, the ZEDE law is wildly unpopular with the Honduran people, and Merrick Garland called the Lobo Sosa regime that created it "a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity":

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

The world's worst people are furious and terrified about Honduras's withdrawal from its ISDS. After 60+ years of wrapping democracy in chains to protect corporate profits, the collapse of the corporate kangaroo courts that override democratic laws represents a serious threat to oligarchy.

As Dearden writes, "elsewhere in the world, ISDS cases have been brought specifically on the basis that governments have not done enough to suppress protest movements in the interests of foreign capital."

It's not just poor countries in the global south, either. When Australia passed a plain-packaging law for tobacco, Philip Morris relocated offshore in order to bring an ISDS case against the Australian government in a bid to remove impediments to tobacco sales:

https://isds.bilaterals.org/?philip-morris-vs-australia-isds

And in 2015, the WTO sanctioned the US government for its "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling, arguing that this eroded the profits of corporations that fished for tuna in ways that killed a lot of dolphins:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-illustrates-supremacy-of-trade-agreements/

In Canada, the Conservative hero Steven Harper entered into the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which banned Canada from passing laws that undermined the profits of Chinese corporations for 31 years (the rule expires in 2045):

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/harper-oks-potentially-unconstitutional-china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1

Harper's successor, Justin Trudeau, went on to sign the Canada-EU Trade Agreement that Harper negotiated, including its ISDS provisions that let EU corporations override Canadian laws:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-eu-parliament-schulz-ceta-1.3415689

There was a time when any challenge to ISDS was a political third rail. Back in 2015, even hinting that ISDSes should be slightly modified would send corporate thinktanks into a frenzy:

https://www.techdirt.com/2015/07/20/eu-proposes-to-reform-corporate-sovereignty-slightly-us-think-tank-goes-into-panic-mode/

But over the years, there's been a growing consensus that nations can only be sovereign if corporations aren't. It's one thing to treat corporations as "persons," but another thing altogether to elevate them above personhood and subordinate entire nations to their whims.

With the world's richest countries pulling out of ISDSes alongside the world's poorest ones, it's feeling like the end of the road for this particularly nasty form of corporate corruption.

And not a moment too soon.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/27/korporate-kangaroo-kourts/#corporate-sovereignty

Image: ChrisErbach (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UnitedNations_GeneralAssemblyChamber.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[meret118]

It largely evolved to constrain national pushes for social and environmental regulation.

More than $100 billion of public money has been awarded to private investors in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) courts, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet.

[female-malice]

Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South

An appeal to leaders, institutions, and our brothers and sisters

More than two years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic—and now alongside the catastrophic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—a “new normal” has emerged. This new global status quo reflects a worsening of various crises: social, economic, political, ecological, bio-medical, and geopolitical.

Environmental collapse approaches. Everyday life has become ever more militarized. Access to good food, clean water, and affordable health care has become even more restricted. More governments have turned autocratic. The wealthy have become wealthier, the powerful more powerful, and unregulated technology has only accelerated these trends.

The engines of this unjust status quo—capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, and various fundamentalisms—are making a bad situation worse. Therefore, we must urgently debate and implement new visions of ecosocial transition and transformation that are gender-just, regenerative, and popular, that are at once local and international.

In this Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South, we hold that the problems of the Global – geopolitical – South are different from those of the Global North and rising powers such as China. An imbalance of power between these two realms not only persists because of a colonial legacy but has deepened because of a neocolonial energy model. In the context of climate change, ever rising energy needs, and biodiversity loss, the capitalist centers have stepped up the pressure to extract natural wealth and rely on cheap labor from the countries on the periphery. Not only is the well-known extractive paradigm still in place but the North’s ecological debt to the South is rising.

What’s new about this current moment are the “clean energy transitions” of the North that have put even more pressure on the Global South to yield up cobalt and lithium for the production of high-tech batteries, balsa wood for wind turbines, land for large solar arrays, and new infrastructure for hydrogen megaprojects. This decarbonization of the rich, which is market-based and export-oriented, depends on a new phase of environmental despoliation of the Global South, which affects the lives of millions of women, men, and children, not to mention non-human life. Women, especially from agrarian societies, are amongst the most impacted. In this way, the Global South has once again become a zone of sacrifice, a basket of purportedly inexhaustible resources for the countries of the North.

A priority for the Global North has been to secure global supply chains, especially of critical raw materials, and prevent certain countries, like China, from monopolizing access. The G7 trade ministers, for instance, recently championed a responsible, sustainable, and transparent supply chain for critical minerals via international cooperation‚ policy, and finance, including the facilitation of trade in environmental goods and services through the WTO. The Global North has pushed for more trade and investment agreements with the Global South to satisfy its need for resources, particularly those integral to “clean energy transitions.” These agreements, designed to reduce barriers to trade and investment, protect and enhance corporate power and rights by subjecting states to potential legal suits according to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. The Global North is using these agreements to control the “clean energy transition” and create a new colonialism.

Governments of the South, meanwhile, have fallen into a debt trap, borrowing money to build up industries and large-scale agriculture to supply the North. To repay these debts, governments have felt compelled to extract more resources from the ground, creating a vicious circle of inequality. Today, the imperative to move beyond fossil fuels without any significant reduction in consumption in the North has only increased the pressure to exploit these natural resources. Moreover, as it moves ahead with its own energy transitions, the North has paid only lip service to its responsibility to address its historical and rising ecological debt to the South.

Minor changes in the energy matrix are not enough. The entire energy system must be transformed, from production and distribution to consumption and waste. Substituting electric vehicles for internal-combustion cars is insufficient, for the entire transportation model needs changing, with a reduction of energy consumption and the promotion of sustainable options.

In this way, relations must become more equitable not only between the center and periphery countries but also within countries between the elite and the public. Corrupt elites in the Global South have also collaborated in this unjust system by profiting from extraction, repressing human rights and environmental defenders, and perpetuating economic inequality.

Rather than solely technological, the solutions to these interlocked crises are above all political.

As activists, intellectuals, and organizations from different countries of the South, we call on change agents from different parts of the world to commit to a radical, democratic, gender-just, regenerative, and popular ecosocial transition that transforms both the energy sector and the industrial and agricultural spheres that depend on large-scale energy inputs. According to the different movements for climate justice, “transition is inevitable, but justice is not.”

We still have time to start a just and democratic transition. We can transition away from the neoliberal economic system in a direction that sustains life, combines social justice with environmental justice, brings together egalitarian and democratic values with a resilient, holistic social policy, and restores an ecological balance necessary for a healthy planet. But for that we need more political imagination and more utopian visions of another society that is socially just and respects our planetary common house.

The energy transition should be part of a comprehensive vision that addresses radical inequality in the distribution of energy resources and advances energy democracy. It should de-emphasize large-scale institutions—corporate agriculture, huge energy companies—as well as market-based solutions. Instead, it must strengthen the resilience of civil society and social organizations. Therefore, we make the following 8 demands:

We warn that an energy transition led by corporate megaprojects, coming from the Global North and accepted by numerous governments in the South, entails the enlargement of the zones of sacrifice throughout the Global South, the persistence of the colonial legacy, patriarchy, and the debt trap. Energy is an elemental and inalienable human right, and energy democracy should be our goal.

We call on the peoples of the South to reject false solutions that come with new forms of energy colonialism, now in the name of a Green transition. We make an explicit call to continue political coordination among the peoples of the south while also pursuing strategic alliances with critical sectors in the North.

To mitigate the havoc of the climate crisis and advance a just and popular ecosocial transition, we demand the payment of the ecological debt. This means, in the face of the disproportionate Global North responsibility for the climate crisis and ecological collapse, the real implementation of a system of compensation to the global South. This system should include a considerable transfer of funds and appropriate technology, and should consider sovereign debt cancellation for the countries of the South. We support reparations for loss and damage experienced by Indigenous peoples, vulnerable groups and local communities due to mining, big dams, and dirty energy projects.

We reject the expansion of the hydrocarbon border in our countries—through fracking and offshore projects—and repudiate the hypocritical discourse of the European Union, which recently declared natural gas and nuclear energy to be “clean energies.” As already proposed in the Yasuni Initiative in Ecuador in 2007 and today supported by many social sectors and organizations, we endorse leaving fossil fuels underground and generating the social and labor conditions necessary to abandon extractivism and move toward a post-fossil-fuel future.

We similarly reject “green colonialism” in the form of land grabs for solar and wind farms, the indiscriminate mining of critical minerals, and the promotion of technological “fixes” such as blue or grey hydrogen. Enclosure, exclusion, violence, encroachment, and entrenchment have characterized past and current North-South energy relations and are not acceptable in an era of ecosocial transitions.

We demand the genuine protection of environment and human rights defenders, particularly indigenous peoples and women at the forefront of resisting extractivism.

The elimination of energy poverty in the countries of the South should be among our fundamental objectives—as well as the energy poverty of parts of the Global North—through alternative, decentralized, equitably distributed projects of renewable energy that are owned and operated by communities themselves.

We denounce international trade agreements that penalize countries that want to curb fossil fuel extraction. We must stop the use of trade and investment agreements controlled by multinational corporations that ultimately promote more extraction and reinforce a new colonialism.

Our ecosocial alternative is based on countless struggles, strategies, proposals, and community-based initiatives. Our Manifesto connects with the lived experience and critical perspectives of Indigenous peoples and other local communities, women, and youth throughout the Global South. It is inspired by the work done on the rights of nature, buen vivir, vivir sabroso, sumac kawsay, ubuntu, swaraj, the commons, the care economy, agroecology, food sovereignty, post-extractivism, the pluriverse, autonomy, and energy sovereignty. Above all, we call for a radical, democratic, popular, gender-just, regenerative, and comprehensive ecosocial transition.

Following the steps of the Ecosocial and Intercultural Pact of the South, this Manifesto proposes a dynamic platform that invites you to join our shared struggle for transformation by helping to create collective visions and collective solutions.

We invite you to endorse this manifesto with your signature.

[mariacallous]

Long a matter of political disputes, how to address climate change is increasingly becoming a legal question. Most recently, on March 29, the United Nations General Assembly voted to seek a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the matter. To date, international law has offered those facing the greatest hardships from climate change few legal tools to sue polluters or receive funds to help adapt to threatening weather changes. An obscure U.N. treaty from the 1970s could potentially change all that.

The recent U.N. resolution was put forward by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and co-sponsored by more than 130 countries. Vanuatu is seeking compensation from the states most responsible for climate change for increasingly powerful cyclones that have struck the low-lying archipelago in recent years.

The U.N. resolution asks the ICJ, sometimes called the World Court, to issue an advisory opinion on states’ obligations “in respect of climate change.” Unlike the International Criminal Court, which investigates alleged crimes by individuals, the ICJ is a civil tribunal that adjudicates disputes between countries. It is the primary judicial agency mentioned in the U.N. founding charter.

The ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding, but they carry legal authority and moral weight. Legal experts point out that such opinions can affect domestic courts’ judgments and provide guidance on questions of definitions, scope, or jurisdiction for international tribunals or panels, such as investor-state arbitration or trade panels at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

As climate change intensifies, activists, scholars, nongovernmental organizations, and small island states are eager for a legal strategy through which they can seek compensation for loss and damage. The obvious starting point is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the centerpiece of the global efforts to address climate change and the organizing framework for more detailed agreements such as the 2015 Paris accords. But the UNFCCC states that any convention disputes must be settled by negotiation unless countries have committed to ICJ jurisdiction. Only two—Cuba and the Netherlands—have done so.

A little-known U.N. agreement about climate disputes could provide the ICJ jurisdiction over a much larger set of countries. In effect since 1978, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, known as EnMod, affirms that state parties are “not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” EnMod defines environmental modification as “the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.” Weather events explicitly fall within the purview of EnMod.

To be clear: EnMod was not designed for climate change as we understand it in the 21st century. The treaty was intended to prevent countries from, for example, weaponizing rain clouds to hurt another country’s agriculture (as the United States allegedly attempted against Cuba during the Cold War). And an EnMod challenge, even within its intended framework, has never been tested at the ICJ.

Even so, legal history is replete with examples of laws and policies having unintended consequences. When the WTO was created in 1995, for instance, Washington insisted that it have a strong and legalistic dispute settlement process because U.S. officials expected the United States would win most of its cases. But the United States has frequently lost at the WTO. In each case, Washington has had to either change its policies or face higher tariffs on some exports.

EnMod’s 78 state parties comprise 70 percent of global population and have been responsible for 83 percent of carbon dioxide emissions since the onset of the treaty, based on our calculations using data from the 2022 Global Carbon Budget. Its membership includes states recognized as being major contributors to climate change—such as the United States, China, and most of Europe—as well as states self-identifying as suffering climate change damages—such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ghana. This gives the convention a legal standing that is qualitatively different from most or all climate change agreements. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris accords included no legal enforcement mechanisms beyond what is stipulated in the UNFCCC.

Though all EnMod member nations continue to emit greenhouse gases, some have made very deliberate efforts to curtail them. The United Kingdom, for example, has now decreased its emissions substantially below the 1990 emissions benchmark set by the Kyoto Protocol. According to our calculations, the U.K. and Canada are each responsible for about 2 percent of cumulative global emissions since 1978, but the U.K. cut its emissions by 42 percent from 1990 to 2022, while Canada increased its emissions by 19 percent over the same period. Canada’s lack of progress on emissions reductions might make it a more promising target for political and legal action by vulnerable states.

While EnMod’s text does not mention the ICJ specifically, it does state that consultation and cooperation should be handled “within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter” and, crucially, that the “international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations.” As the primary judicial agency of the U.N., the ICJ would seem to qualify. Still, the treaty’s failure to explicitly designate a legal venue for resolving EnMod-related disputes means its jurisdiction remains uncertain.

Vulnerable countries seeking compensation for loss and damage, referred to as applicants, should choose their legal targets carefully. (Vanuatu is not currently a member of EnMod, so it could not use it for a legal challenge unless it joins.) The likely targets, known as respondents, would be countries that ratified EnMod and have done relatively little to lower emissions in the decades since. Canada, Australia, and the United States might be politically appealing respondents; even China, although not wealthy on a per capita basis, could come under scrutiny.

Applicants would need to establish “military or any other hostile use” of environmental modification techniques by a target country. The argument that major emitters are causing climate change for military purposes is not likely to get far because militaries are responsible for a tiny fraction of total global emissions. Climate change also doesn’t serve an obvious military purpose, such as allowing one country to conquer another.

Still, applicants could contend that continued emissions in the face of authoritative scientific evidence of climate change is tantamount to intentionally, or at least recklessly, imposing “destruction, damage or injury” on other EnMod members. This rationale is strengthened by the fact that alternative energy sources are increasingly available at commercially viable costs in the global north. In this sense, Canada has been more reckless with its emissions than the U.K.

EnMod guarantees members the right to use “environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.” Most emissions come from civilian, not military, sources, and a respondent might argue that greenhouse gases were emitted for the peaceful purpose of economic production. But applicants could respond that while economic production itself might have a peaceful purpose, the environmental modification caused by emissions does not. On the contrary: Climate change is expected to be enormously destructive and harmful to all forms of life on Earth. The scientific community is increasingly able to attribute extreme climate events, such as cyclones or wildfires, to climate change.

The recent U.N. resolution opens the door to providing greater clarity over whether EnMod, and even the ICJ itself, could be used for climate lawsuits. The ICJ is expected to spend the next year analyzing the relevant international law and issuing an advisory opinion. The court should include the EnMod treaty within the scope of its analysis.

Even if the advisory opinion’s authors ultimately decide that EnMod does not provide the ICJ jurisdiction over climate litigation—or do not address the topic—the treaty gives state parties some political leverage they could use in the future. EnMod members still have the right to lodge a complaint with the U.N. Security Council, which has the legal authority to investigate the complaint or refer it to the ICJ.

This tactic could be useful to groups such as the Climate Vulnerable Forum of 58 countries disproportionately affected by the consequences of climate change. Its professed interest in discussing loss and damage is likely to mean that novel legal and political climate compensation strategies will emerge over the coming decade. Developing these can—and should—include revisiting and potentially repurposing arcane U.N. treaties such as EnMod.

[shreygoyal]

View on Twitter

New barrier to climate action opening up in obscure and secretive part of international trade law: Countries could face up to US$340 billion in financial and legal risk due to Investor-state dispute settlements from cancelling fossil fuel projects.

(Source)

[intelligencecompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197359&_unique_id=66e32afbcdc03 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

[companyknowledgenews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197358&_unique_id=66e32afa9c3d9 #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg Reading Time: < 1 minute A new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK law The legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assets The bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around … Read More

[bravecompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197357&_unique_id=66e32af994bee Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

[boldcompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197356&_unique_id=66e32af805da6 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg #GLOBAL - BLOGGER Reading Time:

[technologycompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197355&_unique_id=66e32af72155a Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL Reading Time: < 1 minute A new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK law The legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assets The bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around … Read More

[internetcompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197353&_unique_id=66e329d6ee062 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

[formidablecompanynews]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197352&_unique_id=66e329d5dbdbd #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg Reading Time: < 1 minute A new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK law The legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assets The bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around … Read More

[smartcompanynewsweb]

UK Tables Crypto Property Bill - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL https://www.merchant-business.com/uk-tables-crypto-property-bill/?feed_id=197351&_unique_id=66e329d4e7415 Reading Time: < 1 minuteA new bill has been introduced to classify cryptocurrencies and digital assets as personal property under UK lawThe legislation provides increased legal protection to owners and businesses handling digital assetsThe bill aims to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in crypto by clarifying legal frameworks around digital assetsA new bill has been introduced in the British Parliament that would classify digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, as personal property under English and Welsh law. This move, aimed at providing more legal protection to asset holders, is expected to clarify the legal status of digital assets such as Bitcoin and NFTs, while maintaining the UK’s position as a leader in the global digital economy.Business Grey Areas Cleaned UpThe Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill will bring significant changes to the way courts handle disputes involving digital property. Previously, digital assets existed in a legal grey area, leaving owners vulnerable in the event of fraud or interference.Justice Minister Heidi Alexander emphasized the importance of this legislative move, stating, “It is essential that the law keeps pace with evolving technologies and this legislation will mean that the sector can maintain its position as a global leader in cryptoassets.”Business Move Will Aid Legal SystemThe bill is expected to boost confidence among investors and businesses while protecting individuals in cases such as divorce settlements, where digital assets might be involved. By establishing a new category of property to encompass crypto-tokens, this legislation also responds to the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations on digital asset reforms.These changes will ensure the UK’s legal system remains modern and capable of handling the complexities introduced by digital technologies, further solidifying the country’s appeal to international investors and businesses in the rapidly growing tech sector. http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/cape_tm-0657fb911a.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL