SpringerLink
Log in

Climate Justice and The Greening of Investment Arbitration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2021

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 52))

  • 716 Accesses

Abstract

Climate justice is a part of the preamble of the Paris Agreement, hence a context for treaty interpretation. It captures the need to protect the interests of those most affected by climate change having made the least contribution. To achieve climate justice all States need to comply with their obligations under the climate change agreements and particularly the Paris Agreement. The question is can States then defend such measures on the ground of climate justice when challenged before investment tribunals. The climate change agreements are such structured that if States do not undertake maximum regulatory measures to protect climate change they may be held responsible for failure to comply with their obligations under the climate change agreements. This chapter argues that there are sufficient interpretative tools allowing States to undertake climate change regulations without being found responsible for violations of investment treaties. For this purpose, obligations under climate change agreements would have to be integrated and harmoniously applied with the treatment standards under investment treaties so to allow States to tackle climate change and achieve climate justice. Systemic integration based on Article 31(3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the existing jurisprudence on the interpretation of treatment standards allows such a possibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 117.69
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    IPCC, AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, 2021.

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.; UNICEF, Thirsting for a Future: Water and Children in a Changing Climate, 22 March 2017.

  5. 5.

    See IPCC 2007, at 708; International Organization for Migration, Migration and Climate Change, 2008.

  6. 6.

    UNHRC, Human Rights and Climate Change, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/7/23, 28 March 2008, para 1.

  7. 7.

    UNGA, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/RES/70/1, 21 October 2015, at 14.

  8. 8.

    OHCHR, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights, UN Doc A/HRC/10/61, 15 January 2009; Robinson 2011, at 67, 68–9.

  9. 9.

    Cameron et al. 2013, at 3–8.

  10. 10.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), 1771 UNTS 107 (‘UNFCCC’), Article 1(2).

  11. 11.

    UNFCCC, Preamble.

  12. 12.

    UNFCCC.

  13. 13.

    Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997), 2303 UNTS 148 (‘Kyoto Protocol’).

  14. 14.

    Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015), TIAS No 16-1104 (‘Paris Agreement’).

  15. 15.

    Baetens 2019, at 116; Baetens 2010, at 696; Miles 2010, at 271.

  16. 16.

    EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (2020), (‘EU-Vietnam FTA’), Article 13.2, 13.6; EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2019), (‘EU-Singapore FTA’), Article 12.2; EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (2011), (‘EU-South Korea FTA), Article 13.3; Brazil-India Bilateral Investment Treaty (2020), (‘Brazil-India BIT’), Article 12.1, 12.2(a); Canada Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model (2021), Article 3; Colombia Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2017), (‘Colombia Model BIT’), Section DD, para 3; EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (2017), (‘EU-Canada CETA’), Chapters 22, 24; EU-OACPS Partnership Agreement (2021), Article 49; EU-Central America Association Agreement (2012), Article 20.

  17. 17.

    Beharry and Kuritzky 2015, at 405–407; Magraw et al. 2019, at 97–130; Harms 2020, at 480–9.

  18. 18.

    In a recent case, although Article 2201 of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia protected measures taken for environment. The tribunal found that there was a threat to an area covered by the Biodiversity Convention and the Constitution of Colombia and the measures were legitimate regulatory measures. Yet the majority concluded that the expectations of the foreign investor were not fulfilled and since the State provided compensation to indigenous people and not to the foreign investor there was discrimination. Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, 9 September 2021, paras 804, 821, 828-30, 836-37; also see strong dissent, Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Republic of Colombia, Partial Dissent of Professor Phillipe Sands QC, paras 15-8, 37.

  19. 19.

    See Harten 2009, at 152–184.

  20. 20.

    Carazo 2017, at 118.

  21. 21.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 UNTS 331 (‘VCLT’), Article 31(2).

  22. 22.

    Carazo 2017, at 118.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., at 117.

  24. 24.

    Paris Agreement, Preamble, para 3, 8, 11; Paris Agreement, Article 2, 4, 6, 7.1, 8.1, 10.5.

  25. 25.

    Rajamani 2006, at 129–75.

  26. 26.

    Rajamani and Guérin 2017, at 88.

  27. 27.

    UNFCCC, Article 3(1).

  28. 28.

    See Mensah 2019, at 5–6; Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/42/427, October 1987; Asheim 1994, at 1–4; Emas 2015, at 1; Sakalasooriya 2021, at 397–399. For Sustainable Development being a part of justice, see Atapattu et al. 2021, at 1–20; Collin and Collin 2021, at 115–132; Brown Weiss 2008, at 616–7; International Law Association, Fifth and Final Report of the New Delhi Conference (2002), at 9.

  29. 29.

    IBA, Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption: Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force Report, July 2014.

  30. 30.

    Okereke and Coventry 2016, at 834–851; Adams and Luchsinger 2009, at 33–37; Schlosbery and Collins 2014, at 359–374; Muelle and Bullard 2012, at 54–62.

  31. 31.

    Bodle and Oberthür 2017, at 94.

  32. 32.

    The Paris Agreement (2015), TIAS No. 16-1104 (‘Paris Agreement’), Article 2.1.

  33. 33.

    Paris Agreement, Article 2.2.

  34. 34.

    Cameron et al. 2013, at 10–3; Robinson 2011, at 70–2; Fisher 2015, at 74.

  35. 35.

    IBA, Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption: Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force Report, July 2014; Segger and Weeramantry 2017, at 1–26; Weeramantry 2017, at 109–12; Crockett 2017, at 539–553.

  36. 36.

    International Law Commission 2006, at para 152(5), 172, 179.

  37. 37.

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, para 6; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID, Final Award, ICSID Case no. ARB/06/11, para 402 [WTO jurisprudence]; Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, 29 July 2008, para 702–703; Swisslion DOO Skopje v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/16, 6 July 2012, para 355 [Articles on State Responsibility]; Cambodia Power Company v. Kingdom of Cambodia and Electricité du Cambodge, ICSID, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/18, 22 March 2011, para 330-332; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID, Decision on Respondent’s Objection Under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5), ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, 11 March 2013, para 81–82 [Customary International Law]; Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1200 [Human Rights principles].

  38. 38.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965) 575 UNTS 159, Article 42; BG Group Plc. v Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, 24 December 2007, para 100; Bücheler 2015, at 94–99.

  39. 39.

    Article 31(3) (c) states: There shall be taken into account, together with the context:… (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties; Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), ICJ, Merits, Judgment, 6 November 2003, para 41; North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain v United States of America), PCA, Award, RIAA 11 (1961), 7 September 1910, 167-226; EC–Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WTO, Panel Report, WT/DS291R, WT/DS292R, WT/DS293R, 21 November 2006, para 7.72 (‘EC–Biotech).

  40. 40.

    Craik 2020, at 244; Dupuy et al. 2021, at 394; Bendel and Harrison 2017, at 15; EC–Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WTO, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS48/AB/R, 13 February 1998, para 60; EC–Biotech, para 456; EC–Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WTO, Panel Report, WT/DS291/R WT/DS292/R WT/DS293/R, 14 May 2003, para 7.67–7.68.

  41. 41.

    Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (1993), 2373 UNTS 233, Preamble; ASEAN–China Investment Agreement (2009), Preamble; EU–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (2018), Preamble; Indian Model Bilateral Investment Agreement (2015), Preamble; EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement (2018), Preamble; EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (2020), Preamble; EU-United Kingdom Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2021), Preamble; EU-OACPS Partnership Agreement (2021), Preamble.

  42. 42.

    Lowe 2000, at 213.

  43. 43.

    Lowe 2000, at 218.

  44. 44.

    Bodle and Oberthür 2017, at 91–103.

  45. 45.

    Newell et al. 2020, at 26.

  46. 46.

    Paris Agreement, Article 2.1(a).

  47. 47.

    Thorgeirsson 2017, at 126.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    UNFCCC, Article 2.

  50. 50.

    Paris Agreement, Article 4.1.

  51. 51.

    Paris Agreement, Article 4(4).

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Paris Agreement, Article 2.1.2(b).

  54. 54.

    See Paris Agreement, Article 7; Thorgeirsson 2017, at 128.

  55. 55.

    Paris Agreement, Preamble, Article 5.1.

  56. 56.

    Winkler 2017, at 167.

  57. 57.

    Pramova et al. 2012, at 589.

  58. 58.

    Paris Agreement, Article 5.2.

  59. 59.

    Paris Agreement, Article 1.2.c.

  60. 60.

    Paris Agreement, Article 9.

  61. 61.

    Thorgeirsson 2017, at 128.

  62. 62.

    Paris Agreement, Article 4(7).

  63. 63.

    Paris Agreement, Article 4(2), (8), (9), (12), (19).

  64. 64.

    Paris Agreement, Article 14(1)–(3).

  65. 65.

    Paris Agreement, Article 3.

  66. 66.

    Rajamani and Guérin 2017, at 78.

  67. 67.

    United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: Note by the Secretariat, FCCC/CP/2015/7, 30 October 2015, para 6, 26, 52–4.

  68. 68.

    Bodle and Oberthür 2017, at 99.

  69. 69.

    Paris Agreement, Article 2(2).

  70. 70.

    Rajamani and Guérin 2017, at 134.

  71. 71.

    Paris Agreement, Article 4(6).

  72. 72.

    United Nations Development Programme, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Global Outlook Report 2021: The State of Climate, October 2021, at 8.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., at 12.

  74. 74.

    UNFCCC, Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement: Revised synthesis report by the secretariat, FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/8/Rev.1, 25 October 2021, at 15, para 69.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., at 7, para 26.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., at 6, para 13.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    United Nations Development Programme, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Global Outlook Report 2021: The State of Climate, October 2021, at 12.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Paris Agreement, Article 6.

  81. 81.

    Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India), ICJ, Preliminary Objections, 26 November 1957, p. 142; Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v France, UK and U.S.), ICJ, Judgment, 1954 ICJ Rep. 19, 15 June 1954, p. 32; East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ, Judgment, 1995 ICJ Rep. 90, 30 June 1995, p. 105.

  82. 82.

    Différend relatif à la répartition des biens des collectivités locales dont le territoire a été coupé par la frontière établie en vertu de l'article 2 du Traité de Paix—Décisions nos 145 et 163, Franco-Italian Claims Commission, Award, (1953) RIAA XIII, 20 January and 9 October 1953, p. 501, 521.

  83. 83.

    Lighthouses Case between France and Greece, PCIJ, Judgment, PCIJ Series A/B, 4, 17 March 1934, 15–17; Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, (1990) RIAA XX, 82 ILR 543, 30 April 1990, paras 63–4, 75, 78, 80, 94; Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v United States of America), ICJ, Judgment, 1952 ICJ Reports 211, 27 August 1951, p. 212; Société Ouest-Africaine des Bétons Industriels (SOABI) v La République du Sénégal, ICSID, Award, (1991) 6 ICSID Rev–FILJ 125, 143, para 4.10; Kolb 2017, at 65.

  84. 84.

    Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, (1984) 23 ILM 359, 25 September 1983, para 14.

  85. 85.

    De Brabandere and Damme 2015, at 43.

  86. 86.

    Wegener 2020, at 1; Maljean-Dubois 2018, at para 45–47.

  87. 87.

    Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v France, Paris Administrative Court, Judgment, Case Nos. 1904967, 1904968, 1904972, and 1904976/4, 3 February 2021, paras 11, 15, 21, 31; Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others, South Africa High Court, Judgment, Case no. 65662/16, 8 March 2017, paras 91, 107; Thomson v Minister for Climate Change Issues, New Zealand High Court, Judgment, CIV 2015-485-919, [2017] NZHC 733, 2 November 2017 (‘Thomson v Minister of Climate Change Issues’) para 91; Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Supreme Court, Judgment, Case no.05-1120, 2 April 2007, paras 1(b), 1(c), 4; Friends of Earth v Canada, Federal Court Canada, Judgment, 2008 FC 1183, [2009] 3 F.C.R. 201, 20 October 2008) paras 10, 11, 12, 32.

  88. 88.

    Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands, Hague Court of Appeal, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, 24 June 2015, paras 4.1–4.8.

  89. 89.

    The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, Supreme Court of Netherlands, Case No. 19/00135, 20 December 2019, paras 5.3.2.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., at paras 5.7.1, 5.8.

  91. 91.

    Thomson v Minister of Climate Change Issues, para 133.

  92. 92.

    Fragmentation Report, para 251 (4), p. 178.

  93. 93.

    North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, (1910) XI RIAA 187, 188; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), ICJ, Judgment on merits, ICGJ 421 (ICJ 2009), 13 July 2009, para 87.

  94. 94.

    Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic, PCA, PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para 254.

  95. 95.

    Rajput 2019, at 9–16, 103–164.

  96. 96.

    Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, 17 February 2020, para 71.

  97. 97.

    Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v The United Mexican States, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, 29 May 2003, para 114; Burlington Resources Inc. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, 14 December 2012, paras 471-473; Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, 30 August 2000, para 103.

  98. 98.

    National Grid P.L.C. v Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 November, 2008, para 147; Pope & Talbot v The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Interim Award (June 26, 2000), ¶¶ 96, 102; Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award (July 26, 2007) para 120; Dolzer and Schreuer 2008, at p. 92–94; Rajput 2019, at 57–59.

  99. 99.

    Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 August 2005, para 43; Marvin Feldman v Mexico, Award, ICSID, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/1, 16 December 2002, para 105-6; Emanuel Too v Greater Modesto Insurance Associates, Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Award, (1989) 23 Iran-USCTR, p. 387; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), ICJ, Judgment, 13 July 2009, (2009) ICJ Rep. 213, p. 249-250, para 87; Saluka Investments B.V v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, p. 52, para 255.

  100. 100.

    For the difference between a regulatory measure versus an expropriatory measure, see Rajput 2019, at 9–15.

  101. 101.

    Dolzer and Schreuer 2008, at 148–149.

  102. 102.

    Waste Management v Mexico (II), ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3 30 April 2004, para 98.

  103. 103.

    Dolzer and Schreuer 2008, at 124–128, 133–140.

  104. 104.

    Pawlowski AG and Project Sever s.r.o. v Czech Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/11, 01 November 2021, para 613; Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, 12 September 2014, para 562; Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Arbitral Tribunal, Dissenting Opinion of Guido Santiago Tawil, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, 21 January 2016, para 5; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, para 805.

  105. 105.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg S.a.r.l. v Spain, ICSID Tribunal, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, 04 May 2017, para 358; Novenergia II-Energy & Environment (SCA) (Luxembourg), SICAR v Spain, SCC Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award, SCC Arbitration 2015/063, 15 February 2018, paras 531–532; National Grid v Argentina, para 173; Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, 22 May 2007, para 262; Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v The United Mexican States, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, 29 May 2003, para 154.

  106. 106.

    El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, 31 October 2011, paras 352, 365–8.

  107. 107.

    Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic, para 304.

  108. 108.

    Pawlowski AG and Project Sever s.r.o. v Czech Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/11, 01 November 2021, para 290.

  109. 109.

    Rajput 2020, at 273–287; Ronald S. Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Ad hoc Tribunal, Final Award, 3 September 2001, at paras 102, 314; Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v The Republic of Ecuador, PCA, Partial Award on Merits, PCA Case No. 34877, 30 March 2010, para 244; Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/ 05/ 8, 11 September 2007 (‘Parkerings v Lithuania’), paras 359– 361; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v Republic of Albania, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/ 11/ 24, 30 March 2015, para 821.

  110. 110.

    Electrabel S.A. v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, 30 November 2012 (‘Electrabel v Hungary’), para 7.78; Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic, para 329; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania [II], ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29, 5 March 2020, para 362.

  111. 111.

    Charanne B.V, Construction Investments S.A.R.L. v Spain, SCC Arbitral Tribunal, Award, SCC Arbitration No.: 062/2012, 21 January 2016, para 409; Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v Italy, ICSID Tribunal, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, 27 December 2016, para 373; Jürgen Wirtgen, Stefan Wirtgen, Gisela Wirtgen, JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co. KG v The Czech Republic, PCA, Final Award, PCA Case No. 2014-03, 11 October 2017, paras 436-437.

  112. 112.

    El Paso Energy International Company v The Argentine Republic, paras 375–377.

  113. 113.

    Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic, para 304.

  114. 114.

    Ibid.

  115. 115.

    Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Republic of Colombia, para 528; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Republic of Colombia, Partial Dissent of Professor Philippe Sands QC, para 12–18.

  116. 116.

    Crompton (Chemtura) Corp. v Government of Canada, PCA, Award, PCA Case No. 2008-01, 2 August 2010, para 149; Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL Ad hoc Tribunal, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 28 April 2011, para 302.

  117. 117.

    William Ralph Clayton and others v Government of Canada, PCA, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, PCA Case No. 2009-04, 17 March 2015, para 737.

  118. 118.

    Saluka Investments B.V (The Netherlands) v The Czech Republic, para 305.

  119. 119.

    Piracha 2021, at 593–596; Newcombe and Paradell 2009, at 226–228; Martini 2017, at 535–536; McLachlan et al. 2017, at 339.

  120. 120.

    Marshall 2014, at 35.

  121. 121.

    Parkerings v Lithuania, para 392.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., at para 368.

  123. 123.

    Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, 6 June 2008, paras 162–4.

  124. 124.

    Parkerings v Lithuania, para 371.

  125. 125.

    CMS Gas Transmission Company v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, 12 May 2005, para 293.

  126. 126.

    Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v The United Mexican States, para 122; El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic, para 241; Marfin Investment Group Holdings SA and others v Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27, 26 July 2018, paras 981-983; Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, 8 July 2016 (‘Phillip Morris v Uruguay’), para 305; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, 5 October 2012 (‘Occidental Petroleum Corp. v Ecuador’), para 404; LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, 3 October 2006, para 195; MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v Republic of Chile, para 109; Electrabel S.A. v Hungary, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, 25 November 2015 (‘Electrabel v Hungary’), para 179; Phillip Morris v Uruguay, para 399; Watkins Holdings Sárl, Watkins (Ned) BV, Watkins Spain SL, Redpier SL, Northsea Spain Sl, Parque E lico Marmellar SL, and Parque E lico La Boga, SL v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/14/55, 21 January 2020, para 601; Glamis Gold, Ltd. v The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 8 June 2009, para 590; Azurix Corp. v Argentina, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, 23 June 2006, para 311; Occidental Petroleum Corp. v Ecuador, para 206, note 7; Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, 14 January 2010, para 306; Burlington Resources Inc v Ecuador, para 164; Parkerings v Lithuania, para 368.

  127. 127.

    Olympic Entertainment Group AS (Estonia) v. Republic of Ukraine, PCA, Award, PCA Case No. 2019-18, 15 April 2021, paras 87–90; Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, 8 July 2016, para 305; Les Laboratoires Servier, S.A.S., Biofarma, S.A.S., Arts et Techniques du Progres S.A.S. v. Republic of Poland, UNCITRAL, Award, 14 February 2012, para 569; Tecmed v Mexico, para 122.

  128. 128.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, para 305; Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Tribunal, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, 31 October 2012, para 522; Tecmed v Mexico, para 122.

  129. 129.

    Electrabel v Hungary, para 179.

  130. 130.

    Philip Morris v Uruguay, para 409.

  131. 131.

    William Ralph Clayton and others v Government of Canada, para 437.

  132. 132.

    Paris Agreement, Preamble.

  133. 133.

    Ibid.

  134. 134.

    Fischlin and Ivanova 2017, at 3–15.

  135. 135.

    Ivanova 2017, at 17.

  136. 136.

    RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Responsibility and on the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, 30 November 2018, para 465; Occidental Petroleum Corp. v Ecuador, para 406.

  137. 137.

    Paris Agreement, Preamble; UNFCCC, Preamble.

  138. 138.

    Simma 1994, at 143–144.

  139. 139.

    Lauterpacht 2011, at 294; also see Kolb 2017, at 141–148.

  140. 140.

    UNGA, Rights of Indigenous peoples, UN Doc A/Res/76/459, 16 December 2021, para 12; UNHRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya: Extractive industries and indigenous peoples, UN Doc A/HRC/24/41, 1 July 2013.

  141. 141.

    For abuse of rights see Kolb 2017, at 133–136 and references therein.

  142. 142.

    Ibid., at 141–148.

  143. 143.

    UNEP, UNEP Report on The Financial Adaptation Gap, 2016.

References

  • Adams B, Luchsinger G (2009) Climate Justice for a Changing Planet: A Primer for Policy Makers and NGOs. UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ngls20092_en.pdf. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Asheim G (1994) Sustainability: Ethical and Foundations Properties. World Bank: Policy Research Working Paper 1302. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/605011468739497097/pdf/multi0page.pdf. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Atapattu S, Gonzalez C, Seck S (2021) Intersections of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development. In: Atapattu S, Gonzalez C, Seck S (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baetens F (2010) Foreign Investment Law and Climate Change: Legal Conflicts Arising from Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Through Private Investment. In: Segger M, Gehring M, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable Development in World Investment Law. Kluwer Law International BV, Alphen aan den Rijn, 681–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Baetens F (2019) Combating Climate Change Through the Promotion of Green Investment: From Kyoto to Paris Without Regime-Specific Dispute Settlement. In: Miles K (ed) Research Handbook on Environment and Investment Law. Edward Elgar, Northampton, 107–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Beharry C, Kuritzky M (2015) Going Green: Managing the Environment Through International Investment Arbitration. American University International Law Review 30(3):383–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendel J, Harrison J (2017) Determining the legal nature and content of EIAs in International Environmental Law: What does the ICJ decision in the joined Costa Rica v Nicaragua/Nicaragua v Costa Rica cases tell us? Questions de Droit International 42, 13–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodle R, Oberthür S (2017) Legal Form of the Paris Agreement and Nature of Its Obligations. In: Klein D, Carazo M, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 91–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss E (2008) Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity, and International Law. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 9:615–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bücheler G (2015) Proportionality in Investor-State Arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 94-99

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron E, Shine T, Bevins W (2013) Climate Justice: Equity and Justice Informing a New Climate Agreement. World Resources Institute and Mary Robinson Foundation. http://pdf.wri.org/climate_justice_equity_and_justice_informing_a_new_climate_agreement.pdf. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Carazo M (2017) Contextual Provisions (Preamble and Article 1). In: Klein D, Carazo M, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 107–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Collin R, Collin R (2021) Environmental Justice and Sustainability. In: Atapattu S, Gonzalez C, Seck S (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 115–132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Craik N (2020) The Duty to Cooperate in the Customary Law of Environment Impact Assessment. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 69, 239–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett A (2017) The integration principle in ICSID awards. In: Segger M, Weeramantry C (eds) Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. Routledge, New York, 539–553

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Brabandere E, Damme I (2015) Good Faith in Treaty Interpretation. In: Mitchell A, Sornarajah M, Voon T (eds) Good Faith and International Economic Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 37–59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P, Moli G, Viñuales J (2021) Customary International Law and the Environment. In: Rajamani L, Peel J (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 385–401

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emas R (2015) The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles. United Nations’ 2015 Global Sustainable Development Report. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Fischlin A, Ivanova M (2017) Scientific and Political Divers of the Paris Agreement. In: Klein D, Carazo M, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher S (2015) The Emerging Geographies of Climate Justice. The Geographical Journal 181(1):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harms S (2020) Toward a Green New Treaty Deal: Reforms to ISDS amid Environmental Crisis. Houston Law Review 58(2):479–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Harten G (2009) The Businessman’s Court. In: Harten G (ed) Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 152–184

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2006) Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Yearbook of the International Law Commission II (2): 177–184

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova M (2017) Politics, Economics and Society. In: Klein D, Carazo M, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2017) Good Faith in International Law. Hart Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (2011) The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford Publications, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe V (2000) The Politics of Law-Making: Are the Method and Character of Norm Creation Changing? In: Byers M (ed) The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 207–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Magraw D, Giorgetti C, Chennoufi L, Cowling K, Drimmer J, Figueroa G, Lee Y, Leva C, Low J, Magraw K, Mccaffrey S, Puig S, Rosemberg A (2019) Model Green Investment Treaty: International Investment and Climate Change. Journal of International Arbitration 36(1):97–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Maljean-Dubois S (2018) Climate Change Litigations. Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall F (2014) Climate Change and International Investment Agreements: Obstacles or Opportunities? International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/bali_2_copenhagen_iias.pdf. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Martini C (2017) Balancing Investors’ Rights with Environmental Protection in International Investment Arbitration: An Assessment of Recent Trends in Investment Treaty Drafting. International Lawyer 50(3):529–584

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2017) International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensah J (2019) Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review, Cogent Social Sciences 5(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles K (2010) Sustainable Development, National Treatment and Like Circumstances in Investment Law. In: Segger M, Gehring M, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable Development in World Investment Law. Kluwer Law International BV, Alphen aan den Rijn, 265–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Muelle T, Bullard N (2012) Beyond the ‘Green Economy’: System Change, Not Climate Change? Development 55:54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment. Kluwer Law International BV, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell P, Srivastava S, Naess L, Contreras G, Price R (2020) Towards Transformative Climate Justice: Key Challenges and Future Directions for Research. Working Paper Volume 2020 Number 540. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/59197/IDL%20-%2059197.pdf?sequence=2. Accessed on 28 April 2022

  • Okereke C, Coventry P (2016) Climate Justice and the International Regime: Before, During and After Paris. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7(6):834–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Piracha N (2021) Toward Uniformly Accepted Principles for Interpreting MFN Clauses: Striking a Balance Between Sovereignty and the Protection of Investors. Kluwer Law International BV, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramova E et al (2012) Forests and Trees for Social Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change. WIREs Climate Change 3(6) 581–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani L (2006) Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani L, Guérin E (2017) Central Concepts in the Paris Agreement and How They Evolved. In: Klein D et al (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajput A (2019) Regulatory Freedom and Indirect Expropriation in Investment Arbitration. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajput A (2020) Due Diligence in International Investment Law. In: Krieger H, Peters A, Kreuzer L (eds) Due Diligence in the International Legal Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 273–287

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson M (2011) Climate Justice: Challenges and Opportunities. Irish Studies in International Affairs 22:67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakalasooriya N (2021) Conceptual Analysis of Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Open Journal of Social Sciences 9(3):397–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosbery D, Collins L (2014) From Environmental to Climate Justice: Climate Change and the Discourse of Environmental Justice. WIREs Climate Change 5(3):359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segger M, Weeramantry C (2017) Introduction. In: Segger M, Weeramantry C (eds) Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. Routledge, New York, 1–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1994) From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, 250. In: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorgeirsson H (2017) Objective (Article 2.1). In: Klein D, Carazo M, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeramantry C (2017) Achieving sustainable justice through international law. In: Segger M, Weeramantry C (eds) Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. Routledge, New York, 109–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener L (2020) Can the Paris Agreement Help Climate Change Litigation and Vice Versa? Transnational Environmental Law 9, 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler H (2017) Mitigation (Article 4). In: Klein D et al. (eds) The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 141–165

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, EC4M 7AN, London, United Kingdom

    Aniruddha Rajput

  2. Public International Law and International Arbitration, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Aniruddha Rajput

Authors
  1. Aniruddha Rajput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aniruddha Rajput .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Daniëlla Dam-de Jong

  2. Department of International and European Union Law, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Fabian Amtenbrink

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rajput, A. (2023). Climate Justice and The Greening of Investment Arbitration. In: Dam-de Jong, D., Amtenbrink, F. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2021. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 52. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-587-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-587-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-586-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-587-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation