Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Legal Doctrines for the U.S. Federal Courts and the International Investment Arbitral Tribunals in Adjudicating the Climate Change Disputes

  • Received : 2022.08.06
  • Accepted : 2022.08.31
  • Published : 2022.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Climate change is a man-made disaster that has become a major global concern today. With increasingly visible symptoms of climate change in recent years, it has become evident that climate action can no longer be dismissed as a mere matter of choice, but as a matter of survival for the human being. To address the impending climate change crisis in a collaborative and sustainable manner, the international community has been taking various measures including Kyoto protocol and the Paris Agreement. With respect to the private investor's project investment in line with international agreements on climate change, recently we have seen multiple legal judgments which clearly indicate the subject of judicial responsibility for investment in climate change related projects. However, in order to hold judicial responsibility occurring during the implementation of climate change related projects, a causal relationship between the responsible entities and clear responsibility must be demonstrated, and applicable institutional arrangements need to be arranged. It may be the right time for global community to consider shifting not only to human ethical obligations but also legal obligations. In this regard, concerned governments should consider legislating arbitration laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements in more specific and applicable manner.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5B8100993).

References

  1. Bazrafkan, Azernoosh & Alexia Herwig, Reinterpreting the Fair and Equitable Treatment Povision in International Investment Ageements a a New and More Legtimate Way to Manage Risks, 7 Eur. J. Risk Reg. 439, 441 (2016).
  2. Bjorklund, Andrea K, Investment Treaty Arbitral Decisions as Jurisprudence Constante in International Economic Law: The State and Future of the Discipline 265 (Colin Picker et al. eds., 2008).
  3. Bodansky, D. (2011). A tale of two architectures: The once and future UN climate change regime. Arizona State Law Journal, 43(3), 697-712.
  4. Bogert, George G. et al., Bogert's Trusts and Trustees, § 582 (2016).
  5. Carlarne, Cinnamon, The Kyoto Protocol and the WTO: Reconciling Tensions Between Free Trade and Environmental Objectives, 17 Colo. J. Int'l Evtl. L. & Pol'y 45 (2006).
  6. Lazarus, Richard J., Changing Conceptions of Property and Sovereignty in Natural Resources Law: Questioning the Public Trust Doctrine, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 631 (1986).
  7. Moloo, Rahim & Justin Jacinto, Environmental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability under Investment Treaties, 29 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 1, 4 (2011).
  8. Newell, Peter & Matthew Paterson, "Climate Capitalism - Global Warning and the Transformation of the Global Economy (2010).
  9. Sands, P. (1992). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 1(3), 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.1992.tb00046.x
  10. Sussman, Edna, The Energy Charter Treaty's Investor Protection Provisions: Potential to Foster Solutions to Global Warming and Promote Sustainable Development, 14 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 391 (2008).
  11. Toscano, Julia, Climate Change Displacement and Forced Migration: An International Crisis, 6 Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 457 (2015).
  12. Vadi, Valentina, Beyond Known Worlds: Climate Change Governance by Arbitral Tribunals? 48 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1285 (2015) at 1286.
  13. Wagner, J. Martin, International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection, 29 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 465, 465 (1999)
  14. Wood, Mary C. A Nature's Trust; Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age 167-75 (2014).
  15. Clean Air Act § 7411(b)(1)(A).
  16. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUR. COMM'N, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/.
  17. The Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994.
  18. Paris Agreement to U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/ Rev.1, art. 2 (entered into force Nov. 4, 2016), art. 2(1)(a).
  19. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 601 (AM. LAW INST. 1987).
  20. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B (AM. LAW INST. 1979).
  21. Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 183 (AM. LAW INST. 1959).
  22. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, Dec. 1/CP.16, par. 4 (Mar. 15, 2011).
  23. Burlington Resources Inc. v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Ecuador's Counterclaims (Feb. 7, 2017)
  24. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000).
  25. Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1257 (2016) .
  26. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
  27. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 525, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 243 n.15, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982)).
  28. Metalclad v. Mexico (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, Aug. 30, 2000).
  29. Nykomb Synergistics Tech. Holding AB v. Latvia, Arb. SCC, Award, (Dec. 16, 2003).
  30. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. 14, ¶ 101 (Apr. 20) (quoting Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (Apr. 9)).
  31. Suez et al. v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010).
  32. The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award, ¶ 47 (May 6, 2013).
  33. Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009).
  34. Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1938, 1965 (Trail Smelter Arb. Trib. 1941).
  35. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).