In the 1990s, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emerged as the primary international forum for managing the interface between biodiversity and biotechnology. Three legally binding protocols to the Convention were concluded, all aiming to regulate bio-innovation. Despite the rapid pace of biotechnological innovation, however, and its implications for biodiversity and equity, CBD policy outcomes have recently shifted towards lower stringency in substance and weaker institutionalization in process. To confirm this trend, we examine decisions adopted by the CBD Conferences of the Parties in 2022 and 2024. We focus on outcomes on three key agenda items: (i) digital sequence information on genetic resources, (ii) risk assessment of living modified organisms, and (iii) synthetic biology. We analyze shifts towards lower stringency in the light of scholarship on legalization and de-legalization, including the softening of international law. We conclude by assessing the implications for the CBD, and for global biotechnology governance more generally.

The European Union (EU) is implementing unilateral trade restrictions on imports that contain residues of pesticides banned for use within its borders. Several Latin American (LA) countries, among other EU trading partners, have criticized these measures, leading to a contentious debate that could escalate into a trade dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article aims to unpack this seemingly polarized debate by re-evaluating the trade concerns raised by LA WTO delegates through a human rights lens. It highlights the disconnect between trade policy positions and human rights commitments concerning pesticides, revealing a bias among WTO delegates in favour of commercial interests, often at the expense of broader societal and ecological concerns raised by human rights-holders in both LA and the EU. The article suggests procedural innovations at both the national and WTO levels that could broaden the trade policy discussion on pesticides, aligning it with human rights standards and urgent collective action for biodiversity stewardship.

The regulation of groundwater remains underdeveloped globally and often lags behind the domestic governance of surface water. As a result, groundwater is often subject to unfettered extraction, uses, and contamination. A clear understanding of ownership is central to the success of domestic regulations. However, the types of ownership regime in place in nations around the world are poorly documented in the academic literature. This study addresses that gap through a comparative analysis of domestic groundwater ownership regimes across ten jurisdictions in nine countries spanning five continents. It identifies three dominant models of groundwater ownership: private ownership, public ownership, and non-ownership with public oversight. It then examines how these ownership doctrines impact key dimensions of groundwater governance, including the nature and transferability of the ownership right, the level of government at which regulation takes place, implications for rights of use, and interactions with customary and Indigenous rights. Doing so offers unique insight into how nations with different legal traditions, governance structures, and customary practices address the ownership of groundwater resources. It also suggests that different ownership (and non-ownership) models can have distinct implications for other aspects of groundwater governance.

In alignment with the vision for the future of the European Union (EU) put forth by the European Green Deal in 2020, and EU efforts to tackle global deforestation and forest degradation, the EU Deforestation-Free Products Regulation (EUDR) was adopted in June 2023. The EUDR is designed specifically as a unilateral, yet transnational, intervention to limit access to the EU market or the exports from the EU of seven key forest-risk commodities whenever they are linked with deforestation, forest degradation, or illegality. Drawing on decolonial and critical food systems scholarship, this article critically examines the EU’s position in combating global deforestation and forest degradation by positioning the EUDR in historically shaped and unequally constructed agri-food chains. Whereas the EU’s plan to decrease deforestation and forest degradation linked with its substantive consumption of products from the global south is an innovative step from the point of view of transnational governance of environmental degradation, we find that the historical amnesia, the emphasis on global trade, and the push for ‘green value chains’ fail to address the root causes of deforestation. Moreover, we contend that the EU legislator overlooked the potential of using transnational governance to rethink agri-food systems, including by promoting re-regionalization in the name of food sovereignty and the right to food.

This article is about state responsibility and its unique interaction with environmental law. While remedies in the main are reparative in nature, the ‘guarantees of non-repetition’ are qualitatively distinct, intended to prevent recurrence of a breach and, as such, this remedy brings added value to environmental law. Utilizing the Montara oil spill as a conceptual testing ground, this article argues that the future-oriented guarantees of non-repetition create an untapped opportunity for an injured state. Benefiting from the leverage attached to receiving guarantees of non-repetition, an injured state may evoke the International Law Commission’s Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm to negotiate future prevention and, where it sees fit, to seek to institutionalize future oversight by various joint-monitoring mechanisms, going so far as to call for a bilateral intergovernmental organization.

Fossil fuel companies no longer deny anthropogenic climate change in litigation, but they challenge the validity of climate science in establishing legal responsibility. Research on climate litigation, social movements, and legal mobilization has focused primarily on plaintiffs’ perspectives, showing how they use the judicial process as a site of knowledge production. This article shifts the focus onto defendants, conducting an analysis of scientific disputes in major climate change lawsuits and developing a typology grounded in both empirical analysis and theoretical insights for studying their arguments about science and evidence. Corporate defendants build evidentiary counter-narratives, challenge the substantive quality of plaintiffs’ claims, and contest the scientific integrity of compromising evidence. The future impact of such litigation will hinge on how courts evaluate climate research as legal evidence, and whether corporate defendants are successful in their efforts to reframe, undermine, and discredit the science.

In this article, I study non-material harm in cases of environmental liability. Environmental tragedy does not only come at great economic cost but often also brings about non-material loss – that is, loss that has no market value. In order to better recognize, assess, and measure this type of harm, more insight is needed into its psychological conception and parameters. Departing from the available legal frameworks on non-material harm in Belgium as well as in the Netherlands, I study how environmental psychology can help in recognizing, assessing, and measuring environmental non-material harm. More specifically, I focus on solastalgia, a notion that describes the psychological impact of negatively perceived changes to a familiar environment. Solastalgia describes a crisis of identity as a result of a disturbance in the way in which humans inhabit their environment. It describes a form of ecological grief over the loss of a familiar place – that is, the aggregate meanings, values, familiarity, and predictability attached to a specific environment. Using the available theoretical framework around solastalgia and the available empirical insights in the solastalgia literature, I show that solastalgia qualifies as a valid type of harm and bears significant advantages when implemented in environmental tort law frameworks.

Light pollution – the use of artificial lighting at night (ALAN) – is a growing environmental problem. This article focuses on how the European Union (EU) governs light pollution. A few key points are made. At first glance, the regulatory situation appears to be straightforward: there is no explicit EU governance in this area, as no regulation has been adopted with specific targets to mitigate light pollution. Yet, many EU instruments indirectly affect the growth of light pollution without mentioning the term by name. This article discusses specific examples from the EU Habitats Directive and the Energy Labelling Regulation, amongst others. On the basis of these examples, the article argues that this web of instruments, when considered together, can be conceptualized as ‘shadow’ governance. It concludes that unless light is shed on regulatory spillovers, the current EU regulatory framework will continue to worsen, rather than address, light pollution.