Pakistan is one of the few countries worldwide whose Constitution does not explicitly address the environment. The higher courts have filled the vacuum by turning to the constitutional right to dignity, which the Constitution says is ‘inviolable’, as the basis for improving environmental outcomes to water, sanitation, and a stable climate, to name a few. This paper hazards an explanation as to the judicial reasoning behind this development. It posits that Pakistan takes the idea of dignity under law so seriously as to embrace environmental matters. In recent years, the courts have increasingly recognised the links between environmental protection and the enjoyment of human rights, including in particular, the human right to dignity. This article maintains that this is a positive development. As a conceptual matter, attention to human dignity foregrounds the impacts on human beings of environmental decisions, including decisions that contribute towards addressing climate change issues. It requires courts to address the ways in which those decisions diminish the ability of people to manage their own lives, often in ways that disproportionately affect those who are already the most vulnerable and marginalised.

This project is a close study of the legal and political aspects of management of water resources in semi-arid environments. The British in India laid the foundations of the modern irrigation system in what is now India and Pakistan. In semi-arid environments, the bulk of agriculture relies on irrigation, as it did in Spain under the Moors. We can observe a stark divide in the use of laws and institutions to manage natural resources in different societies, at different times and places. Some societies have managed in a way that achieved prosperity and long-term sustainability. The Moors of Spain created a vibrant civilization in the Middle Ages that lasted nearly eight hundred years. One of the reasons for the dynamism of their civilization was their judicious management of water resources on which foundation they created a thriving agricultural economy that produced the economic surplus for their vibrant urban culture. Of particular interest is what I regard as the essence of Moorish water management: its management of scarcity by borrowing principles from the great cradles of civilization, Mesopotamia and the Nile, which built abundance in harsh environments, along with principles of use, reuse and justice as conceived of in the Quran.

The present chapter attempts a comparative analysis of three different legal systems and their approaches to environmental law, contributing to the extensive literature on this area of law in numerous areas of the world such as the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. However, that literature appears to have had little coverage of the treatment of environmental law in Islamic law, one of the three main global legal systems together with common and civil law. The bold spread of Islamic tendency in the Middle East that followed the so-called “Arab Spring” assures major changes in the political and economic sphere, including environmental and natural resource levels. Environmental threats are very pressing all over the world, as the Earth needs to be protected through the adoption of universally applicable legal rules and the right to a healthy environment needs to be elaborated on in international instruments. Man’s position in the universe is premised on two principles: the stewardship of man which means that man is not only a creature but also God’s khalifa (steward) on earth.

The book develops the synergies between Islamic Law, Environmental Law, and Corporate Social Responsibility to situate the concern of environmental degradation looking at regional, transboundary and global disputes between the state, corporate actors, and stakeholders. This book will lay the foundations of Islamic thought related to environmental protection, air quality control, and water rights. Through the lens of environmental law, the work will broaden the framework for Islamic law and critique political and economic dynamics in Muslim-majority countries that give rise to increased levels of environmental toxicity, hazardous waste, water stress, and rampant extractivism. This collection examines these concerns in terms of rigidities and interdependencies, between competing claims to resources, rights and responsibilities, strategy and governance, between state and corporate actors, and the implications for equity and the common good over the long term. Islam and Environmental Law is simultaneously a classical legal framework and contemporary approach for environmental protection, human rights, and an earth-centered jurisprudence.

Religious codes possess social control effects that can potentially change the behaviour of their adherents towards becoming pro-environment. In the case of Islam, Muslim-majority states since the time of the Prophet Muhammad have implemented Islamic environmental law to this effect. Unfortunately, accounts of its implementation today in the legal literature are scant, thereby requiring fresh insights that consider changes in the application of Islamic law in modern states. Generally, this article observes that the implementation of Islamic environmental law today takes two forms: first, implementation through constitutions; and, second, implementation through non-binding religio-legal instruments. Focusing on the second form, application in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia is analysed and evaluated. In these three Southeast Asian states non-binding religious rulings (fatwa) and mosque sermons (khutbah) have been used to implement Islamic environmental law. There are two key factors which contribute to ensuring that these non-binding instruments achieve their social control objectives: first, local legal and political contexts shaped by religion-state relations that help their implementation and legitimation; and, second, the pursuit of post-fatwa/khutbah follow-up action by religious authorities to put Islamic environmental law into actual practice.

For people to effectively share an environment, they usually also must effectively share knowledge about that environment. While seemingly obvious and intuitive, this insight is often overlooked in literature about governing resources as commons. Focusing on the knowledge commons associated with an environmental commons helps to illuminate a host of complex governance dilemmas. This chapter examines the interrelationship between environmental and knowledge commons, weaving together different strands of commons research and practice. Examples discussed include shared pastures, forests, road systems, computer servers, social media platforms, living rooms, and antimicrobial effectiveness/resistance.

This chapter elaborates on environmental law and anti-SLAPP provisions in those countries. It explains how environmental law in these countries has evolved from an instrumental-based and piecemeal approach to an integrative and comprehensive one. Beyond that, environmental concerns have also been understood as a human rights issue, which has led to the incorporation of environmental rights in the constitution and relevant legislation and policies. In addition, environmental law provides legal frameworks how public participation in environmental matters concerns should be governed, facilitated, or constrained, which in turn has influenced how environmental movements conduct their struggles and how states and non-state actors implicated in their struggles respond to them. These legal frameworks are important elements that have shaped the ways in which public engagement on environmental issues is controlled, advanced, or restricted and how environmental movements navigate and mobilise those frameworks to make their claims.

Failures of environmental law to preserve, protect and improve the environment are caused by law’s contingency and constitutional presumptions of supremacy over the self-regulatory agency of nature. Contingency problems are intrinsic to law and, therefore, invite deployment of technologies. Constitutional presumptions can be corrected through geo-constitutional reform. The latter requires the elaboration of geo-constitutional principles bestowing authority on nature’s self-regulatory agency. It is suggested that principles of autonomy, loyalty, pre-emption, supremacy and rights have potential to serve that aim and imply proactive roles for technologies in environmental governance. Geo-constitutional reform is necessary to prevent the fatal collapse of the natural regulatory infrastructure enabling life and a future of environmental governance by design. Once environmental catastrophe has materialized, however, geo-constitutionalism loses its raison d’être.

Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of the current state of international law. It begins by explaining the extent to which environmental rights are protected in international law. This includes an examination of the recent resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The chapter also looks at a number of specific human rights, such as the right to life and the right to an adequate standard of living, exploring the way these rights have been applied by courts and tribunals in environmental cases. The chapter also explains the role of intergenerational equity as a long-standing principle of international environmental law, albeit it one which often lacks legal force. Finally, the chapter provides some examples from domestic law where the environmental rights of future generations have been protected. Overall, the chapter demonstrates that, while there is now widespread recognition of the environmental dimensions of human rights and growing protections at the domestic level, international human rights law still provides only limited protection of environmental rights and no explicit protection of the rights of future generations.

Chapter 9 addresses a selection of contract law issues including licensing and collaboration agreements from a practical point of view. It also engages with competition law, international trade law, and environmental law aspects of beer law. The chapter includes a section devoted to the legal issues that are associated with cross-border internet sales of beer.

During the Symposium held in Manhattan in 2004 coining the One Health approach, the role of environmental law was underlined. The IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, through its representative from Southeast Asia, insisted on the importance of biodiversity conservation and the protection of wildlife while massive culling measures were taken to counteract zoonotic diseases. In this chapter we will show how the development of the One Health approach has been historically favoured by environmental law, acknowledging the interactions between health and biodiversity. We will detail how it has spread into the multilateral environmental agreements in relation to biodiversity conservation and how the environmental protection arena has evolved quite independently from the health sector in implementing the One Health approach until UNEP joined the FAO-OIE (WOAH)-WHO forces and the input from the OHHLEP (One Health High Level Expert Panel) in that respect. We will conclude with examples of One Health implementation in relation to environmental law, whether they concern research projects or training, notably in Southeast Asia.

We highlight the essential role of law and governance in advancing the transformative potential of One Health. While One Health has traditionally focused on public health and zoonotic disease, its broader application encompasses challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance. Despite its potential, One Health remains underutilised in governance and law, with much of its implementation focused on siloed scientific endeavours.

This book addresses these gaps, demonstrating how legal frameworks can embed and sustain One Health principles. It explores diverse themes, including multilevel governance, Indigenous Knowledge systems, environmental law, and emerging legal mechanisms, to showcase the interdisciplinary nature of One Health. Contributors emphasise the need for multisectoral collaboration, enforceable standards, and cross-disciplinary engagement to address governance barriers and ensure holistic, equitable outcomes.

By presenting a vision for the institutionalisation of One Health through law and policy, this volume challenges traditional approaches and offers pathways for integrating One Health into governance systems.