To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article examines the 1964 interim constitutions of Egypt, Iraq, and Syria as markers of a two-decade-long shift in Arab constitutional design—moving from individual liberal rights toward a new regional social contract centered on social rights. The vision of a progressive society rested on two principles of collective welfare: solidarity—expressed through constitutional commitments to collective well-being—and social justice, which aimed to ensure equality and better living standards for all. Contrary to common interpretations, these documents were not simply authoritarian bargains or tools for consolidating power. Rather, the interim constitutions were social bargains that reflected legislative social engineering during decolonization and guided both citizens and the state in building a new society. Despite the intense regional rivalries, these constitutions reflected a shared commitment to socioeconomic transformation that transcended political divides. The analysis of these constitutions shows that the difficulties in their execution extended beyond future limitations of political will or economic resources. Rather, they contained inherent legal and ideological tensions about the structure and direction of the progressive society—particularly in their approach to fundamental questions of social organization. These tensions emerged in the complex relationship between family and individual rights, the delicate balance between private and collective ownership, and the role of state patriarchy in providing social welfare.
This article examines India’s energy transition agenda, which the central government drives to reduce the impact of climate change through the development of renewable energy. It presents a case study of the ‘Oran Land’ in the Thar desert in India, which is affected by the country’s energy transition agenda. It further highlights issues relating to human rights infringement linked to corporations undertaking the transition and operating in the ‘Orans’—a community-protected land. The article concludes with discussions on legislative developments in India and global best practices that seek to mainstream human rights into business practice and further strengthen compliance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
The Paris Agreement’s commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has resulted in an uptick in environmental laws and regulations. However, such state conduct could implicate other legal obligations and norms, including international investment law and international human rights law. The conversation about human rights, net-zero and investment treaties, including arbitration cases and arbitral awards under the treaties, is in its relative infancy. This article examines how investment treaties are equipped to reconcile relevant norms with a particular focus on corporate codes and policies that pronounce broad commitments to protecting human rights and the environment. It establishes certain principles to guide parties and arbitral tribunals as to the codes while recognizing the inevitable challenges they will face.
Reflecting on the civil claim filed in France under the French Duty of Vigilance law (LdV) by members of the Union Hidalgo community in Mexico against the energy company Electricité de France (EDF), this article explores interactions between human rights due diligence in renewable energy projects. The lawsuit is one of the first cases brought under the LdV, and the first case claiming violations of Indigenous rights. The rights violations experienced by the community—the lack of free, prior and informed consent and violence against human rights defenders—epitomize the reality of harmful corporate tactics in the energy and extractive industries. Whereas the LdV enshrines a process through which communities affected by harmful corporate practices can access transnational legal avenues for redress, inconsistencies and ambiguities within the law call into question its ability to effectively regulate the human rights activities of French corporations involved in renewable energy projects.