The sound of a breaking string: critical environmental law and ontological vulnerability

This is a thought-provoking contribution on the space of ontological vulnerability as the awareness of being existentially exposed. This space, conceptualised as a space of ‘the middle’ (as opposed, emphatically, to ‘the centre’) offers an opportunity to think away from the sterile debate on eco/anthropocentricity and from such limiting hierarchies as animal/human, human/environmental, natural/artificial. This new, vulnerable position of the middle allows the reconfiguration of ecological processes, and more specifically the position of environmental law in relation to them. Environmental law now finds itself amidst a new, moving, ‘open ecology’ of social, biological and ecological processes. This is a new, radical conceptualisation of what the author has called ‘critical environmental law,’ based upon an epistemology of observation and an ontology of being part of this open ecology. Environmental law, in this light, is simultaneously reformulated as an invitation to disciplinary and ontological openness and yet a call to remain immanent within existing legal structures. This finds expression in four critical environmental positions that set the stage for the further elaboration of a critical environmental law.

Sustainable Chemical Regulation in a Global Environment

The globalisation and unintended impacts of chemicals sets substantial challenges for sustainable development and the protection of natural resources such as land and water. Currently, there are three key chemical Conventions, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal which came into force in 1992, the 1993 Rotterdam Convention on Trade in Dangerous Chemicals and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (2004). These Conventions have as common features a mechanism for assessment of chemical safety, a process for the addition of new chemicals to a list of controlled substances and capacity building in developed countries. However, they only cover a small fraction of the chemicals manufactured and traded across the world. Defining effective regulation of chemicals is an on-going debate that has the potential to have a significant impact on vested commercial and political interests. A sustainable chemical industry should take account of evidence-based standards and through legal mechanisms adopt long-term precautionary evaluations rather than short-term market driven decisions. It is argued in this paper that effective international chemical regulation in the future will come from the adoption of sound chemical management and corporate social responsibility, but it recognised that this will face the challenge of economic disparity between countries and the potential export of regulatory risk from big chemical conglomerates to poorly regulated jurisdictions.

In-enviroment of law

A linguistic game of prepositions in order to define the following: (1) What is the Environment? What is 'environment' for environmental law? (2) How does the law react to the complexity of its environment? (3) How to take into account the ecological crisis within a rather narrow, anthropocentric legal frame? (4) How to move away from the hackneyed binarism econcentricity/anthropocentricity and venture a different, de-centred conceptualisation? (5) How can utopia be considered in its potential realisation? The paper is a further investigation of the concept of the paradox in the ecological legal crisis.

Public Interests, Private Disputes: Investment Arbitration and the Public Good

This paper seeks to investigate the bases for resistance to arbitration in general -and investor arbitration in particular- focusing on the way in which arbitral tribunals deal with notions of public interest and the public good. The paper hypothesises that while courts have within their terms of reference the capacity to consider notions of public interest, arbitral tribunals do not. It is this core difference in the scope of decision making between the two bodies that could render privately organised dispute resolution unsuitable for disputes that have public aspects, like investor-state disputes. The paper discusses the meaning of public interest and the public good as found in the literature. It then proceeds to consider how tribunals in the investment field have dealt with these concepts. This leads to a conclusion urging not abandonment of arbitration as a component of dispute resolution, but caution. It is argued that unchecked growth in private dispute resolution can threaten perceptions of legitimacy and democratic accountability. The paper adopts a socio-legal methodology in considering the effect of legal mechanisms on social and political phenomena. It is also informed by a law and economics methodology in addressing impacts of dispute resolution mechanisms on economic efficiency. The contribution of the paper rests on theorising motivations for resistance to private dispute resolution, a topical issue in light of the TTIP debate.