This entry interrogates the harmful ways in which understandings of international law, development and natural resources have become intertwined by documenting current unsustainable and inequitable patterns of resource use, histories of extraction, exploitation and legal struggles over resource control. It suggests however, there are different ways of rethinking the relationship between law and the natural world and reimagining the destructive triad between international law, development and natural resources.
This article critically evaluates the discourses concerning the social impacts of Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) carbon offset schemes on people living in and around forest areas. In particular, the article critically evaluates two of the strategies proposed to mitigate potential social risks from REDD+ and to promote benefits to forest peoples and indigenous peoples: tenure reform and processes of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The article suggests that these strategies may not lead to the outcomes forest peoples and their advocates are seeking and provide only constrained tools for contesting REDD+ projects. This article suggests these strategies may instead operate to facilitate the greater disciplinary inclusion of forest peoples in the so-called ‘green economy’.
This article offers some preliminary reflections on what has arguably been a blind spot in discussions both of the Paris Agreement and in the literature on climate change and human rights, namely the continual extraction of fossil fuels. The present article suggests three analytical tools – a ‘transnational law of carbon’, infrastructure and global value chains – that may offer possibilities for rethinking the relationship between fossil fuels and international law, as well as bringing questions of justice and rights into the centre of the frame.
Anna Grear and Julia Dehm
Julia Dehm and Adil Hasan Khan
Outrage at the environmental injustice caused by an economic logic that promoted the export of hazardous waste from rich industrialized countries to regions in the global South led to the adoption of the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989) and the Ban Amendment (still not legally binding) in 1995. The Ban Amendment prohibits the export of waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries and has been widely celebrated as one of the few fulfilled promises of the Rio Earth Summit and a real victory of environmental justice and South solidarity to defeat powerful vested interests. This chapter examines and maps the ways in which the victory of the Ban Amendment has been undermined in the succeeding 20 years and how this has led to obscuring of the responsibility of industrialized countries for the production of hazardous wastes.