Climate Change and International Law. Exploring the Linkages Between Human Rights, Environment, Trade and Investment

Mapping the relevant principles and norms of international law, the paper discusses scientific evidence and identifies current legal foundations of climate change mitigation adaptation and communication in international environmental law, human rights protection and international trade regulation in WTO law. It briefly discusses the evolution and architecture of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, in particular the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It discusses the potential role of human rights in identifying pertinent goals and values of mitigation and adaptation and eventually turns to principles and rules of international trade regulation and investment protection which are likely to be of crucial importance should the advent of a new multilateral agreement fail to materialize. The economic and legal relevance of rules on tariffs, border tax adjustment and subsidies, services and intellectual property and investment law are discussed in relation to the production, supply and use of energy. Moreover, lessons from trade negotiations may be drawn for negotiations of future environmental instruments. The paper offers a survey of the main interacting areas of public international law and discusses the intricate interaction of all these components informing climate change mitigation, adaptation and communication in international law in light of an emerging doctrine of multilayered governance. It seeks to contribute to greater coherence of what today is highly fragmented and rarely discussed in an overall context. The paper argues that trade regulation will be of critical importance in assessing domestic policies and potential trade remedies offer powerful incentives for all nations alike to participate in a multilateral framework defining appropriate goals and principles.

Creating a public tool to assess and promote transparency in global land deals: the experience of the Land Matrix

The Beta version of the Land Matrix (Land Matrix 2012) was launched in April 2012 as a tool to promote public participation in building a constantly evolving database on large-scale land deals, and making the data visible and understandable. The aim of the Land Matrix partnership is to promote transparency and open data in decisionmaking over land and investment, as a step towards greater accountability. Since its launch, the Land Matrix has attracted a high degree of attention, and stirred some controversy. It provides valuable lessons on the challenges and benefits of promoting open data on practices that are often shrouded in secrecy. This paper critically examines the ongoing efforts by the Land Matrix partnership to build a public tool to promote greater transparency in decision-making over land and investment at a global level. It intends to provoke discussion of the extent to which such a tool can ultimately promote greater transparency and be a step towards greater accountability and improved decision-making. It will present the Land Matrix and its value addition, before detailing the challenges it encountered related to the measurement of the largescale land acquisition phenomenon. It will then specify how it intends to address these issues in order to establish a dynamic and participatory tool for open development.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

An Enabling Regulatory Environment for Sustainable Investment: The Example of Trade Law

There is broad international agreement that investment flows to the agricultural sector in developing countries need to be increased. But there is also agreement that such investments need to be sustainable. For being sustainable, they must not only be beneficial to the public economy, but also to rural households and to the environment in the short and the long run. Whether sustainable investments take place, not least depends on the legal framework within which these investments are situated. This is true for the domestic legal frameworks of both the home country and of the host country of the investment. But also the international legal frameworks in which home and host states are embedded set either positive or negative incentives for investments to be sustainable. The paper presents an overview on regulatory frameworks which come to focus in this regard. It then elaborates on international agricultural trade regulation, by assuming that sustainable investments in agriculture presume a ‘sustainable trade regime’. By doing so, the paper presents parts of the debate about a sustainable agricultural trade regime, as it has been resumed and further developed by the author in recent years. Key words. Agricultural sector, sustainable investment, regulatory environment, sustainable trade regime.

Corporate aging and investment decisions

Paper I: Corporate aging and internal resource allocation Abstract Various observers argue that established firms are at a disadvantage in pursuing new growth opportunities. In this paper, we provide systematic evidence that established firms allocate fewer resources to high-growth lines of business. However, we find no evidence of inefficient resource allocation in established firms. Redirecting resources from high-growth to low-growth lines of business does not result in lower profitability. Also, resource allocation towards new growth opportunities does not increase when managers of established firms are exposed to takeover and product market threats. Rather, it seems that conservative resource allocation strategies are driven by pressures to meet investors’ expectations. Our empirical evidence, thus, favors the hypothesis that established firms wisely choose to allocate fewer resources to new growth opportunities as external pressures force them to focus on efficiency rather than novelty (Holmström 1989). Paper II: Corporate aging and asset sales Abstract This paper asks whether divestitures are motivated by strategic considerations about the scope of the firm’s activities. Limited managerial capacity implies that exploiting core competences becomes comparatively more attractive than exploring new growth opportunities as firms mature. Divestitures help stablished firms free management time and increase the focus on core competences. The testable implication of this attention hypothesis is that established firms are the main sellers of assets, that their divestiture activity increases when managerial capacity is scarcer, that they sell non-core activities, and that they return the divestiture proceeds to the providers of capital instead of reinvesting them in the firm. We find strong empirical support for these predictions. Paper III: Corporate aging and lobbying expenditures Abstract Creative destruction forces constantly challenge established firms, especially in competitive markets. This paper asks whether corporate lobbying is a competitive weapon of established firms to counteract the decline in rents over time. We find a statistically and economically significant positive relation between firm age and lobbying expenditures. Moreover, the documented age-effect is weaker when firms have unique products or operate in concentrated product markets. To address endogeneity, we use industry distress as an exogenous nonlegislative shock to future rents and show that established firms are relatively more likely to lobby when in distress. Finally, we provide empirical evidence that corporate lobbying efforts by established firms forestall the creative destruction process. In sum, our findings suggest that corporate lobbying is a competitive weapon of established firms to retain profitability in competitive environments.

Sustainable investment in land in the Global South: What would it require from a coherence perspective? The case of Sierra Leone

Large scale acquisitions of land in the Global South have signifi-cantly increased since the millennium. It is often the case that foreign investors are involved in such acquisitions, which are commonly aimed at facilitating the export of commodities. These investments in land tend to transform conventional, rather small scale agricultural systems into large scale, industrial agricultural systems. While investment in ag-riculture in the Global South is much needed, large-scale investments in land often goes hand-in-hand with environmental and human rights re-lated challenges. As a consequence, lawyers need to address questions of sovereignty over natural resources (this paper focuses in particular on land resources), to peoples’ right to self-determination, to the responsi-bilities of the home and host states of the investors, including public-private relationships, and the role of international institutions who are involved, as well as relevant jurisprudence. This paper approaches these questions from the perspective of a theory on policy coherence for sus-tainable development.