IMO technical and operational measures for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas from ships : perspectives of Asian countries

International shipping is responsible for about 2.7% of the global emissions of CO2. In the absence of proper action, emissions from the maritime sector may grow by 150% to 250% by 2050, in comparison with the level of emissions in 2007. Against this backdrop, the International Maritime Organisation has introduced a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Some Asian countries have voiced serious reservations about the newly adopted IMO regulations. They have suggested that imposing the same obligations on all countries, irrespective of their economic status, is a serious departure from the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, which has always been the cornerstone of international climate change law discourse. Against this backdrop, this article presents a brief overview of the technical and operational measures from the perspective of Asian countries.

The border adjustments of the Australian clean energy package

Climate change is a global challenge. For this reason, it has been suggested that a global solution is necessary. In Australia the Clean Energy Package has been introduced with a purpose of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and responding to international obligations. This Package contains the institutional framework for an emissions trading scheme. The Package also includes amendments for other existing legal arrangements. These arrangements include a greenhouse gas emissions price on certain imported products. With this in mind the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to consider the border adjustments and import charges of the Clean Energy Package and determine whether these comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization. Second, to analyse whether a border tax adjustment could be included in the Package for emissions intensive trade exposed (EITE) products. This paper concludes that, although the existing arrangements appear to comply with the WTO legal requirements, a border adjustment on EITE products could not be implemented in a manner that would comply with these rules.

Emissions trading and the GATS financial services provisions : a case study of the Australian carbon pricing mechanism

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine whether greenhouse gas (GHG) tradeable instruments will be classified as financial products within the scope of the World Trade Organization (WTO) law and to explore the implications of this finding. Design/methodology/approach This purpose is achieved through examination of the units of the Australian Carbon Pricing Mechanism (CPM), namely eligible emissions units. These units are analysed through the lens of the definition of financial products provided in the General Agreement for Trade in Services (the GATS). Findings This paper finds that eligible emissions units will be classified as financial instruments, and therefore the provisions that govern their trade will be regulated by the GATS. Considering this, this paper explores the limitations that are introduced by the Australian legislation on the trade of eligible emissions units. Research limitations/implications This paper is limited in its analysis to the Australian CPM. In order to draw conclusions on the issues raised by this analysis it is necessary to consider the WTO requirements against an operating emissions trading scheme. The Australian CPM presents a contemporary model of an appropriate scheme. Originality/value The findings in this paper are crucial in a GHG constrained society. This is because emissions trading schemes are becoming popular measures for pricing GHG emissions, and for this reason the units that are traded and surrendered for emissions liabilities must be classified appropriately on a global scale. Failing to do this could result in differential treatment that may be contrary to the intentions of important global agreements, such as the WTO covered agreements.

Shifting Powers : Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Asia Pacific Region

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) 2011 statistics on refugee populations residing by region are a stark reminder of the challenge facing states and civil society in the Asia Pacific. In 2011, Africa hosted 2,149,000 refugees; the Americas, Europe, and Middle East and North Africa hosted 513 ,500, 1,605,500 and 1,889,900 respectively, while the Asia Pacific hosted a staggering 3,793,900. The fact that 35 per cent of the world's refugees reside in the Asia Pacific, coupled with the fact that 84 per cent of refugees displaced in Asia remain in the region,raises the questions why so few countries in the region are signatories to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugee Convention') or cognate rights instruments and why no formally binding regional agreement exists for the equitable sharing of responsibilities for refugees...

The role of common but differentiated responsibility in the 2020 climate regime

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) will play a role in the 2020 Climate Regime. This Article starts by examining differential treatment within the international legal order, finding that it is ethically and practically difficult to implement an international climate instrument based on formal equality. There is evidence of state parties accepting differential responsibilities in a number of areas within the international legal order and the embedding of CBDR in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), means that that differential commitments will lie at the heart of the 2020 climate regime. The UNFCCC applies the implementation method of differentiation, while the Kyoto Protocol applies both the obligation and implementation method of differentiation. It is suggested that the implementation model will be the differentiation model retained in the 2020 climate agreement. The Parties’ submissions under the Durban Platform are considered in order to gain an understanding of their positions on CBDR. While there are areas of contention including the role of principles in shaping obligations and the ongoing legal status of Annex I and Non-Annex I distinction, there is broad consensus among the parties in favour of differentiation by implementation with developed and major economies undertaking Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objectives (economy wide targets) and developing countries that are not major economies undertaking sectoral targets.

Responsibility to protect and women, peace and security : aligning the protection agendas

In Responsibility to Protect and Women, Peace and Security: Aligning the Protection Agendas, editors Davies, Nwokora, Stamnes and Teitt address the intersections of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Widespread or systematic sexual or gender-based violence is a war crime, a crime against humanity and an act of genocide, all of which are clearly addressed in the R2P principle. The protection of those at risk of widespread sexual violence is therefore not only relative to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but a fundamental sovereign obligation for all states as part of their commitment to R2P. Contributions from policy-makers and academics consider both the merits and the utility of aligning the protection agendas of R2P and WPS. Ultimately, a number of actionable recommendations are made concerning a unification of the agendas to best support the global empowerment of women and prevention of mass atrocities.

Protecting the Displaced : Deepening the Responsibility to Protect

This edited collection has sought contributions from some of the foremost scholars of refugee and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) studies to engage with the conceptual and practical difficulties entailed in realising how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can be fulfilled by states and the international community to protect vulnerable persons. Contributors to this book were given one theme: to consider, based on their experience and knowledge, how R2P may be aligned with the protection of the displaced. Contributions explore the history and progress so far in aligning R2P with refugee and IDP protection, as well as examining the conceptual and practical issues that arise when attempting to expand R2P from words into deeds.

Commentary on papers by Professor Fletcher and Mr Martin

In light of the time available today, I will limit my comments to addressing that aspect of Professor Fletcher’s paper in which he refers to the 2012 report he co-authored with Professor Wessels of the Netherlands for the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) on Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases. I will comment on the potential benefits for Australian courts as well as insolvency administrators and their advisers in referring to the ALI-III Report - in light of Australia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. In so doing, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Academy of Law, under the leadership of The Hon Dr Kevin Lindgren for the research project underpinning these comments, as well as to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson and Mark Wellard.

Creating an enabling legal framework fro REDD+ investments in Kenya

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) has emerged out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)/Kyoto Protocol negotiations. It is intended to be a mechanism to channel funding (from both public and private sources) for reducing emissions from the forest sector. It is an international climate change policy that relies on national implementation. In order to attract and manage REDD+ investments (both public and private), countries need to decide on their approach to REDD+ implementation through a series of policy choices, and then implement those policy choices through strong legal frameworks. An important question for REDD+ host countries to consider, therefore, is how to develop robust legal structures to facilitate REDD+ implementation. These legal frameworks could be based on existing laws, and/or require new law making.

Is Australia ready for biosimilars?

The biosimilars market is potentially the single fastest growing pharmaceutical sector with an estimated worth of US$67bn in global sales by 2020. This market generally refers to larger molecule, biological, protein-based pharmaceuticals which have lost its patent. This has stimulated the emergence of non-conventional pharmaceutical investors such as Fujifilm and Samsung as well as host countries such as Brazil, Mexico, China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Russia, which view biosimilars as a key macroeconomic driver of growth. Internationally, the European Medicines Agency has led the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars; however, many countries have developed their own biosimilar regulatory frameworks. Despite the similarity of these with European guidelines, differences do exist across jurisdictions and have implications for cross-jurisdictional registration and regulation. The consideration of biosimilar regulation, however, demands attention beyond quality, safety and efficacy. The potential implications of extended patent protection, international trade and globalisation require a congruent policy approach to their regulation. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia is a relatively small pharmaceutical market and that there are only 14 biosimilar products currently approved for use, Australia’s geographical proximity to pharm-emerging countries and its trade relation with the major pharmaceutical markets have positioned Australia in a unique position to influence international development and regulation of biosimilars. Australia’s National Medicines Policy (2000) potentially provides the foundation for a partnership approach to biosimilar regulation, minimise duplication of regulatory efforts while at the same time fostering a viable pharmaceutical industry.

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) and refugee policy in Southeast Asia : twenty years forward what has changed?

In 2012, the only South East Asian countries that have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol) is Philippines (signed 1954), Cambodia (signed 1995) and Timor Leste (signed 2001). Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have annual asylum seeking populations from Myanmar, South Asia and Middle East, that are estimated to be at 15 000-20 000 per country (UNHCR 2012). The lack of a permanent and formal asylum processing process in these countries means that that asylum-seeking populations in the region are reliant on the local offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based in the region to process their claims. These offices rely upon the good will of these governments to have a presence near detection camps and in capital cities to process claims of those who manage to reach the UNHCR representative office. The only burden sharing mechanism within the region primarily exists under the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (the Bali Process), introduced in 2002. The Bali Process refers to an informal cooperative agreement amongst the states from the Asia-Pacific region, with Australia and Indonesia as the co-chairs, which discusses its namesake: primarily anti-people smuggling activities and migration protocols. There is no provision within this process to discuss the development of national asylum seeking legislation, processes for domestic processing of asylum claims or burden sharing in contrast to other regions such as Africa and South America (i.e. 2009 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of the Internally Displaced, 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees [Americas]) (PEF 2010: 19).