The chapter discusses constitutional rules on political and electoral systems and political parties. While constitutions in Anglophone African countries are maximalist, Francophone Africa countries tend to be constitutionally minimalist on electoral and political party regulation, leaving key aspects of electoral systems for presidents, legislature and election management bodies to statutory regulation, which has led to instances of controversial and regressive reforms. Despite the differences, however, the relevant constitutional rules have remained relatively stable, and democratic backsliding often happens through irregular processes and legal reform, rarely through constitutional change, except presidential term limits. Fundamentally, the chapter argues that the winner-takes-all nature of politics constitutes the principal scourge of democratization in Africa, incentivizing attempts to manipulate and violate electoral and party rules. Accordingly, to enable progress in constitutional democracy, ensure stability of the rules of the game, and preclude abusive changes, constitution makers should recognize the manifestations of and tackle winner-takes-all politics, including through the recognition and empowerment of opposition groups.

Trade secrets raise three primary issues. First, if an entity is forced to share trade secrets to expedite development and to expand the supply of needed products, must or should the government compensate the rights holder? Although this chapter addresses this question, it is largely unnecessary to answer it. This is because compensation is not required under international law, and because reasonable compensation should normally be provided for compelled trade secret sharing. Second, does international law prohibit governments from compelling the sharing of trade secrets, including by compulsory licensing? The short answer is no. Third, what authorities currently exist or could be adopted for governments to compel the sharing of trade secrets? The chapter provides general overview of a range of existing authorities, as well as a framework for addressing the latter two questions and for understanding the complexity of the first question.

This chapter maintains that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may usefully intervene in the complex and multifaceted litigation that has developed before national and international tribunals, as well as human rights treaty bodies, concerning national climate policies adopted to implement international obligations. By considering the rationale and nature of climate litigation, the chapter seeks to point out what international law rules the ICJ should take into account (especially clarifying their existence and scope) in order to make a real contribution to national and international jurisprudence.

This chapter identifies three distinct reasons why China took a middle-of-the-road position in the debate on the COVID-19 TRIPS waiver at the WTO. It also recounts the country’s more assertive position in the run-up to the adoption of the Ministerial Decision on the waiver. Drawing eight lessons from the international debate on the waiver and the subsequent Ministerial Decision, the chapter offers insights into the future role China can or will play in future international policy debates at the intersection of intellectual property and public health, including during the next pandemic.

The lawfulness of carbon border adjustment measures (CBAMs) under general international economic law and particular economic agreements is explored; specifically, if their international lawfulness can be determined by thinking of them as countermeasures necessary to implement climate change obligations. As there are no non-discriminatory obligations under customary international law, it is argued that CBAMs are lawful under general international law, but under particular international economic agreements they can be seen as countermeasures lawfully taken in response to breaching the obligation to curb GHG emissions, allowing their justification as a breach of primary non-discriminatory economic obligations, particularly the national treatment principle under the GATT and GATS. This shifts the burden of proving necessity/proportionality to the State in breach of the obligation. CBAMs are fundamentally lawful measures and can only give rise to compensation if it they are unnecessary/disproportionate. This chapter also assesses whether they can be thought of as erga omnes contractantes obligations under international economic agreements, particularly the GATT and the GATS.

This chapter discusses the building blocks of the European Union’s strategy for climate neutrality. Carbon pricing in the EU is described, focusing on the EU ETS and on the forthcoming CBAM. Then the roles of electrification and clean molecules in the future European energy system are discussed. Finally, sustainable finance priorities, capacities, and regulatory instruments put forward by the EU are reviewed, before a brief conclusion.

It is, by now, beyond dispute that climate change presents the single greatest environmental challenge of our times. It is equally likely that this challenge will only be met by sustained and iterative cycles of global policy formation, administrative rule-making, regulatory action, and impact assessment. The second and third of these steps, broadly speaking, constitute the process of policy implementation. While the scholarly study of policy implementation is not new, it has yet to receive serious attention in the area of climate change regulation. The reasons for this are relatively simple.

First, the policy formation stage is still ongoing. As the recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai vividly demonstrates, major outstanding disagreements on the basic structure of global climate policy remain.1

This chapter aims to inform reflection on business self-regulation (or corporate social responsibility, CSR) in addressing climate change by drawing on developments in ‘business and human rights’ and the experience accumulated in the European Union (EU). Despite dissimilarities in addressing the environmental and human right impacts of business operations, there are commonalities around incentives, impacts and regulatory dynamics of CSR that help clarify its expected place in global governance. This analysis revisits long-standing claims about CSR in light of current legal and market evolutions. The main finding is that the notion of CSR has been fundamentally transformed in the last 20 years. What is the change, what are the drivers enabling such change, and what are the expected impacts on corporate compliance and sustainability performance? The analysis contributes to the regulatory governance area, including regarding climate change, and promotes cross-fertilisation among the social and environmental areas in CSR.