Nicolas De Sadeleer’s Post

𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬! #newmember The Campaign for Greener Arbitrations: The Green Pledge welcomes Lucas Métral as the new member of our North America Committee - CGA. If you want to be part of the Campaign for Greener Arbitrations: The Green Pledge and support our efforts in making international arbitration greener and more #sustainable, please find more information about the hashtag #greenpleadge and our Committees at https://lnkd.in/dKv_vmc. Olivier André Glenn Gibson Adam Weir #internationalarbitration #greenpledge #greeningarbitration

Over the past few weeks, the DeHavilland EU and OPP team has closely followed the confirmation hearings of the Commissioners-designate, distilling the most important insights from each session into one comprehensive briefing so you don’t have to. By downloading our briefing, you will discover: ✅ The Commissioners’ top priorities ✅ Major issues that arose during the hearings ✅ Standout moments that shaped the discussions

Good analytical piece on the next phase of the Green Deal by IDDRI (with links to my contribution on 'competetitive sustainabaility' to the project, as well as to excellent pieces by others).

👓 ⚖️ 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐫𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫: A concise overview of key judgments and advisory opinions cited during the first seven days of oral hearings at the 🌐 🧑⚖️ International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States' obligations in the context of climate change. The majority of these references aim to ensure that the forthcoming ICJ advisory opinion builds on a robust body of jurisprudence, affirming States' extensive legal obligations under international law and outlining remedies for breaches. This coordinated effort by numerous States underscores the importance of integrating rich legal precedents, contrasting sharply with the stance of many fossil fuel producers, who disingenuously argue that the Paris Agreement is the sole source of States' obligations, seeking to sideline broader legal principles and norms. 👀 if there are other cases that you would like me to search for, please do let me know in the comments below. There were no references that I could find so far to the La Oroya case for instance. * Note that this also includes the references contained in the footnotes. And for the true international law nerds, do not worry: cases such as Barcelona Traction, the Iron Rhine Arbitration, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru... I will provide an updated mapping of these references at the end of the hearings. #ClimateJusticeAtTheICJ #AOLetsGo #InternationalLaw

"Recognizing the critical role of the private sector in the effort to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification has launched the Business for Land Initiative (B4L). B4L brings together business sector partners worldwide with a keen interest in supporting and implementing sustainable land management measures. The initiative aims to support the private sector to seize opportunities and manage risks associated with land degradation along value-chains. "Increased disclosures and the adoption of targets have been identified as key levers to improve businesses’ impacts on nature. Acknowledging the opportunities of these two areas of action, B4L is engaging leading reporting initiatives on strengthening corporate land-related disclosures and target setting. Following an introductory meeting organized by B4L in May 2024, we are now holding a workshop to dive into the land-related reporting indicators identified by some of the reporting initiatives to select those indicators most suitable to monitor corporate sustainable land practices." Will trees be disaggregated during 'Strengthening corporate land-related disclosures' tomorrow, 28 June, at 10:00-13:00? Will businesses have considered the natural capital unit, Timothy Gieseke? Hosted at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), 4 Albert Embankment, SE1 7SR https://lnkd.in/dej3J_8f

We are delighted to be ranked once again in Chambers and Partners Europe Edition. We congratulate our recognized practices Energy & Infrastructure and Construction as well as our experts Aimo Halonen, Juho Lönnblad, Ville Vyyryläinen and Alisa Montonen for rankings as one of the top legal practitioners in Finland! More about the rankings on our website: link in comments.   Suomeksi uutisen voi lukea verkkosivuiltamme: linkki kommenteissa.   #chamberseurope #chamberseurope2024 #energy #construction #legaladvice #businesslaw

Nearly two weeks ago, the UK Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in Finch v Surrey County Council, which held that an oil company seeking approval for the development of an onshore oilfield of a certain size must state in its environmental impact assessment the total greenhouse gas emissions which arise from the "project", including those arising from the burning of the hydrocarbons (the latter being Scope 3 emissions), no matter where in the world these Scope 3 emissions may actually be generated. Taking into account the Scope 3 emissions data, the decision-maker (County Councils onshore) must "reach a conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment." The ruling also applies by extension to the UKCS, where the planning regulation is substantially in the same terms, albeit with two national regulators. Prior to Finch, it was settled law that oil companies only needed to list greenhouse gas emissions arising directly from the project. For reasons which I give in the linked article entitled "R (Finch on Behalf of Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council - Bad Law and Worse Policy" (https://lnkd.in/eYmMDQy5), I respectfully argue that the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court is flawed. Additionally, as suggested by the dissenting opinion in Finch, the new process will be unworkable in some respects. However, Finch is now settled law and binding on the onshore and offshore oil industry. The policy implications of the decision are negative. Onshore, County Councils will be forced into making local planning decisions based on what should (or what they think should) be national energy policy. Results may vary from County Council to County Council. Offshore, the law is that licensees MUST carry out licence activities including exploration, appraisal and development so as to "maximise economic recovery" (MER) of offshore hydrocarbons. Licences often also contain mandatory work obligation commitments. The logic of Finch is that there may be instances where development approval for discoveries resulting from these offshore activities may not be forthcoming based on a consideration never once anticipated by the offshore MER regime. The holding in Finch should be overruled by new legislation. If not, it can, I suggest, be finessed by the type of guidance suggested in my article. A number of good friends from commercial, technical and legal backgrounds reviewed various drafts of this article and gave valuable input. I won't embarrass them by naming them. You know who you are! #climatelitigation #Finch #maximisingeconomicrecovery vasspetro.com

Marine governance needs to evolve if we are to achieve climate objectives under the European Green Deal. But how do we move forward with this improvement given EGD’s complex, onion-like structure and intricate connections to land-based activities 🤔💭 Knowledge is power as they say, so the first step is to try and understand which EGD policies have a bearing on marine governance 📃➡🌊 This task kept us busy for more than a year so we are really excited to share the results! In this report, we remove EGD’s complexity layer by layer, breaking it down into 3 constituent parts: EGD elements, high-level strategies, and implementing and supporting policies.   The report in numbers 🐋 Marine life: 7️⃣ policies mapped 🥤 Marine plastic: 1️⃣0️⃣ policies mapped ⚡ Marine energy: 6️⃣ policies mapped 🛳 Maritime transport: 1️⃣4️⃣ policies mapped 🔀 Cross-cutting priorities: 7️⃣ policies mapped   In addition, we reviewed known institutional barriers and attributes (actor eligibility, responsibility, control, social connectivity, conflict, social learning, accountability) to indicate how these can manifest themselves in the reviewed policies.   That’s a real treasure trove of information. Happy reading 😊☕📖 https://lnkd.in/dFXzuEnA

Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson joined legal voices from around the world on the impact of the European Court of Human Rights ruling that declared governments inaction on emissions as a human rights violation, sharing: “European courts have been a guiding light for judges around the world in recognizing that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis and that it is only through government action that we can preserve a livable future. In Canada, courts at every level, including our Supreme Court, have looked to European courts when weighing how the legal system ought to respond to the climate crisis. Today’s landmark ruling will undoubtedly continue this trend and assist courts around the world in addressing this existential threat to life on our planet. We remain hopeful that Canadian courts, including the Court considering the Ecojustice backed Mathur et al climate lawsuit, will align with their European counterparts.” Find out more about this groundbreaking ruling: https://hubs.ly/Q02sh4KL0

The new greenwashing provisions in Bill C-59, while aimed at promoting corporate accountability, introduce significant challenges and raise concerns about free speech. The vague requirement for companies to substantiate environmental claims using "internationally recognized methodologies" leads to legal ambiguity and inconsistent enforcement, placing undue burden on businesses. This ambiguity can act as a deterrent, stifling companies from making legitimate environmental claims due to fear of legal repercussions, effectively curbing free speech and open dialogue about sustainability efforts. Moreover, the provisions grant significant power to regulatory bodies like the Competition Bureau to determine the veracity of environmental claims. This centralization of authority raises questions about who the arbiter of truth will be, potentially leading to biased or politically influenced decisions. The introduction of private rights of action further complicates the situation, potentially leading to frivolous lawsuits from advocacy groups, which could overwhelm the Competition Tribunal and create a chilling effect on corporate speech. Therefore, these measures may not only fail to promote genuine sustainability but also hinder open communication and transparency.