Author: Faculty of Business and Law

By Noëlle Quénivet

On 16 February 2026, the Research in Public International Law Group welcomed Professor Helen Duffy (University of Leiden, The Netherlands) to deliver a talk on “Strategic Human Rights Litigation – and the case of Abu Zubaydah”. She shared her experience as a human rights litigator with over 30 staff and students (in person and online) on our LLB, LLM, and BTC programmes. In her presentation, she explored what “strategic human rights litigation” is, and importantly, what it is not. The discussion went far beyond a courtroom-focused view of wins and losses. Instead, it encouraged us to see litigation as one tool among many to promote social change, document history, and uphold human dignity.

What makes litigation “strategic”?

At its core, strategic human rights litigation is defined by its goal rather than the forum. It involves legal action pursued with aims that extend beyond the immediate parties and the narrow result of a single case. These goals may include clarifying the law, empowering communities, catalysing policy reforms, documenting truth or shifting public narratives.

Strategy influences how cases are constructed, the forums chosen, the timing, the parties involved, and how legal actions are integrated with advocacy, media, and community efforts. While strategic human rights litigation was once niche, it is now increasingly employed, with a growing number of claims and diverse judicial mechanisms. Yet, Professor Duffy also stressed its challenges: courts face attacks, judgments are not enforced, and the rule of law is being undermined.

Updating the lenses: time-lapse, wide-angle, high-definition

Professor Duffy, the founder of Human Rights in Practice, proposed three complementary ‘lenses’ for thinking about the impact of strategic litigation.

Time-lapse: Strategic impact can occur before, during, and long after a case concludes. Litigation processes can dignify survivors, organise communities, and shape public understanding. In Hadijatou Mani v Niger, the very act of testimony in a regional court was experienced by a former slave as empowering, making visible what had long been denied. Similarly, in Plan de Sánchez v Guatemala, a genocide case before the Inter-American Court, litigation mobilised a community around truth and reparations, even as social and everyday life needs (e.g., crops, health facilities) extended beyond what any judgment could deliver.

Wide-angle: Litigation is only one contributor to change. In Argentina, accountability for dictatorship-era crimes unfolded over years through multiple processes, from challenging amnesty laws to criminal prosecutions, all accompanied by documentation efforts, films, and social mobilisation. Law and society moved together.

High-definition: Impact is multi-dimensional and certainly not linear. Outcomes can include cessation of violations, reparations, legal and policy reforms, institutional strengthening, and the creation of a historical record. Sometimes, the most meaningful “result” is the articulation of truth in a public forum. One Hebron resident, repeatedly litigating land issues despite adverse prospects, captured this poignantly: “If they do nothing, I have a record… and what else can I do?” That record, he suggested, is itself a form of resistance and an archive of rights-based claims.

Case study: Abu Zubaydah and the CIA rendition programme

The case of Abu Zubaydah illustrates both the promise and the limitations of strategic human rights litigation in a context sadly marked by secrecy, transnational complicity, and enduring impunity. Following 11 September 2001, the United States operated a global system of “black sites” where individuals were detained and subjected to brutal torture.

Traditional avenues, such as criminal investigations in the US, were blocked. It is telling that the first court to acknowledge what happened to Abu Zubaydah was the European Court of Human Rights, which found Poland and Lithuania responsible for their roles in his unlawful detention and ill-treatment, recognising state complicity and ordering compensation. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recognised his detention as arbitrary. Various mechanisms were employed. Although each was just a piece of the puzzle, together they revealed a system intentionally designed to evade the law.

Has this litigation “succeeded”? By conventional standards, the answer is sobering. Abu Zubaydah remains in detention; no one who designed or maintained that system, or tortured him, has been prosecuted. Yet, thanks to this litigation, the programme’s secrecy has been pierced. Compensation holds both symbolic and material significance. A detailed historical record now exists to inform public memory and future policy decisions.

Professor Duffy highlighted the interplay between law and other modes of expression, such as advocacy, journalism, and “artivism”. For Abu Zubaydah, whose voice is tightly controlled, artwork has become a means of communicating with the world. It serves as another reminder that justice extends beyond the courtroom and that storytelling is powerful.

Beyond the judgment: power, protest, and perseverance

If we steer away from a binary win-or-lose vision, we can better see strategic human rights litigation as a contribution to collective agency. Communities often know that a single case will not solve entrenched problems such as poverty, discrimination, and structural violence. Litigation can nonetheless name harms and acknowledge experiences. Strategic litigation is a tool which, combined with social movements, cultural work, and policy advocacy, can reframe debates, protect space for dissent, and sustain hope in difficult times. As two survivors put it, one a Gazan applicant at the European Court of Human Rights, another a torture survivor from Argentina – litigation can be “a form of resistance”, “a form of protest”, and a source of “courage to keep fighting”.

Strategic litigation and the call for reflective, impact-focused legal practice

Strategic human rights litigation serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice is not merely a goal to be achieved, but rather an ongoing, dynamic process. It is characterised by its iterative nature, involving continuous refinement, and reflects our inherently imperfect humanity. As I listened to Professor Duffy, I was reminded that a couple of days earlier I delivered a lecture to our Year 2 LLB students on the Student Lawyer module, urging them to engage critically with the interrelationship between law and society, not only considering the broader impact that laws exert on society but also the influence of society on the law.

By Cristian Heredia Ligorria, PhD Candidate at the Bristol Law School, UWE

On 18 April 2024, the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group (ELSRG) hosted an event titled “Unveiling the Power of Climate Change Litigation: Global Climate Justice from a Latin American and Caribbean Perspective.” This event underscored the pursuit of leadership in this crucial field, emphasizing the role of courts and bodies in advancing climate justice at global, regional, and local levels. Distinguished speakers from the University of Tilburg, Middlesex University London, Cardiff University, and the University of Bristol contributed to the discussion. The roundtable event established networks to support researchers focusing on courts and environmental and climate justice in Bristol, surrounding areas, and internationally. This event continues a series of discussions on related topics, emphasizing different regions and local issues in Bristol and the UK.

This event addressed the importance of context-sensitive approaches by enriching the analysis of climate action, with a particular focus on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The objective was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role of courts and other bodies at various levels in addressing the disproportionate and unequal impacts of the climate crisis, both between and within countries. This includes considering vulnerable populations such as women, children, Indigenous Peoples, workers, Afro-descendant communities, and Nature in itself. The last decades have shown how “climate litigation,” encompassing legal and administrative proceedings that raise material issues of law or fact related to climate change mitigation, adaptation, or science,[1] can be used to “destabilize” the climate inertia of government and business in addressing the environmental and climate emergency in the region,[2] and be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the legal and scientific consensus reflected in the Paris Agreement and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.[3]

The emphasis on Latin America and the Caribbean was based on the region’s vulnerability and exposure to climate change impacts.[4] Over the last three decades, LAC has experienced a worrying trend of rising temperatures, averaging 0.2°C per decade.[5] This has led to severe consequences such as increased sea levels, floods, and droughts, exacerbating existing challenges in food and energy production as the recent flooding catastrophes in Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. The region’s vulnerability is heightened by factors like poverty, inequality, and inadequate environmental regulations.[6] Exploitative extractive practices, disputes over natural resources, and institutional weaknesses further compound these vulnerabilities.[7] However, LAC plays a leading role in climate governance, offering significant legal opportunities for climate litigation due to the progressive constitutional recognition of human rights and environmental substantive and procedural rights. [8] The region is at a pivotal moment for climate action. Last November, Chile and Colombia requested an Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to clarify states’ human rights obligations, akin to the requests before the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, albeit based on different legal grounds.[9] Despite the growing phenomenon of climate litigation globally and particularly in this region, significant challenges remain, especially when considering the specific historical and socio-economic context of the places where these cases are filed. These challenges can hinder compliance and enforcement if not cautiously addressed.

Overall, this roundtable marked the first ELSRG event to focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, drawing lessons from both successes and failures in the region. The event comprised two sessions featuring a total of five talks, each addressing different aspects of the role of courts and bodies in promoting climate justice.

Session 1

The first session, chaired by Dr. Elena Blanco, an UWE Associate Professor in International Economic Law, introduced Dr. Juan Auz, a Postdoc Researcher at Tilburg University with an extensive experience on the region, who presented his article titled “Political Ecology of Climate Remedies in Latin America and the Caribbean.”[10] He analysed the meaning and implementation challenges of climate remedies through a political ecology perspective. Dr. Auz began by mapping various climate litigation cases grounded in human rights arguments, highlighting the legal opportunities that Latin American constitutional systems offer based in his previous work on the subject. [11] He explored the climate crisis’s impact on human rights and natural systems in LAC, emphasizing the Inter-American Human Rights System’s (IAHRS) role in adjudicating and ordering remedies. Using a political ecology perspective, Dr. Auz delved into the challenges of implementing these remedies, highlighting the intricate interplay between law, society, and nature. He argued that a political ecology perspective enables a critical examination of the power dynamics inherent in the governance of natural resource exploitation and the distribution of contingencies affecting both people and nature in resource-rich countries. Drawing comparisons between domestic climate-related cases and anti-extractivist cases heard by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), he identified extractivism as a pivotal factor influencing remedial compliance. Dr. Auz introduced the concept of a “remedial continuum,” ranging from “affordable” to “onerous” remedies and discussed how socioeconomic costs shape state compliance. This presentation, rooted in his article, offered insights into the potential effectiveness of IACtHR-ordered climate remedies based on current litigation trends in LAC. It provided valuable insights into the barriers and potential solutions for fostering effective climate action in the region. The presentation also highlighted the potential of human rights frameworks to address climate justice issues, offering valuable and cautious insights for policymakers, legal practitioners, and activists working to ensure that climate litigation leads to tangible environmental and social outcomes in the region.

After framing the legal and political panorama of the region, Dr. Auz set the stage for Prof. Olmos Giupponi from Middlesex University London and also with a rigorous knowledge of LAC challenges. The presentation was centred on her article titled “Just Transition in the Global South: Alternative Approaches from Latin America.” Her primary objective was to evaluate the role of international environmental and human rights law in promoting a “just transition,” while also analyzing this concept through a context-specific perspective. Dr. Olmos Giupponi rigorously examined the conceptual dimensions of the term “just transition,” contending that it is predominantly shaped by narratives from the “Global North” and necessitates the development of a more contextually sensitive and interdisciplinary framework. She advocated for reimagining climate justice and just transition through bottom-up and transnational approaches, emphasizing justice principles such as equity, fairness, and inclusivity in considering the unique local contexts, challenges, and vulnerabilities of the Global South. Furthermore, Prof. Olmos Giupponi connected the topic with environmental conflicts in Latin America. After elucidating the primary legal foundations and case databases of domestic just transition cases, she underscored the predominance of a human rights-based approach in such cases in the region. She observed a potential paradigm shift in certain instances where a holistic approach integrating human rights and environmental law is applied, while also questioning its effectiveness. Concluding her presentation, she introduced alternative theoretical perspectives on just transition in Latin America, including eco-centric perspectives centered on the “Rights of Nature,” “environmental conflict” perspectives that critique neo-extractivism and neo-colonialism, and “social and energy justice” perspectives. Finally, she shared reflections on implementation, the relevance of human rights-based approaches, the advisory opinion of the IACtHR, and the potential of just transition as a new participatory mechanism.

Following these comprehensive, rigorous, and thought-provoking presentations, Dr. Elena Blanco facilitated a Q&A session. The audience inquired about the potential effects of legal recognitions in the region. Responses were cautious, underscoring the significance of progressive constitutional frameworks such as Ecuador’s and Bolivia’s recognitions of the “Rights of Nature,” but concerns lingered regarding the practical application of these formal recognitions. A Ph.D. researcher at UWE raised a query concerning the strategies for addressing challenges posed by polluting companies while formulating robust climate policies from a legal standpoint, emphasizing the varying conceptions of justice across different contexts, as elucidated by Dr. Olmos Giupponi’s context-specific approach.

Further questions were raised by Dr. Blanco regarding the role of Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms in tandem with climate litigation cases, probing into their impacts on state decarbonization efforts and just transition agendas. She highlighted that these arbitration forums were the product of the “legal imagination” of a group of multinationals, investor, and their lawyer in the natural resources sector with the constitutive aim of removing some investment issues from states’ judicial competence.[12] Additionally, inquiries surfaced regarding the extent to which proposals in LAC should adhere to genuine respect for the rule of law, while acknowledging the lack of effectiveness in some cases, particularly in the context of authoritarian regimes and climate change skepticism. With the conclusion of the first session, participants engaged in informal discussions during the refreshment break, fostering continued dialogue and exchange of ideas.

Session 2

Transitioning from the first session’s focus on a Latin American and Caribbean perspective, the second session, chaired by Dr. Austin Nwafor, a law lecturer at UWE specializing in ocean and plastic pollution governance, continued exploring the roles of courts and bodies across different levels. This session delved into how these entities function at international, transnational, and local levels, addressing overarching questions on climate change, human rights, and plastic pollution. Speakers, including Dr. Alice Venn, Dr. Sam Varvastian, and Dr. Sahar Shah, provided diverse perspectives, grounded in Indigenous worldviews, examining these issues through lenses such as human rights law, climate change litigation, and the complexities of environmental governance. This highlighted the interconnected nature of global challenges, stressing that solutions must consider multiple crises simultaneously, including the urgent need for climate action following international agreements like the Paris Agreement and responses from human rights bodies to climate litigation cases. [13]

Dr. Alice Venn, Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol, began the second session with her article titled “Rendering International Human Rights Law Fit for Purpose on Climate Change.”[14] Her primary objective was to dissect the challenges and propose solutions regarding the international human rights regime’s adequacy for addressing climate issues. The presentation navigated through the integration of human rights law with climate change action, underscoring the UN’s recognition of climate change’s profound impact on human rights. It spotlighted the provisions within the Paris Agreement concerning human rights, particularly for marginalized groups, and scrutinized various UN Human Rights Treaty Body mechanisms designed to tackle climate-related grievances. Legal and operational hurdles, such as pinpointing responsibility for climate damage and grappling with onerous reporting requirements, were carefully examined by Dr. Venn. Case studies, including those adjudicated by the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, were also invoked to illustrate the practical application of human rights frameworks in climate litigation. Dr. Venn emphasized the imperative for strengthened collaboration between climate and human rights bodies, while also anticipating the potential ramifications of forthcoming legal opinions, notably the ICJ Advisory Opinion on state obligations regarding climate change. By delving into the provisions of the Paris Agreement and various UN mechanisms, Venn underscored the imperative to shield vulnerable groups from the detrimental effects of climate change. Through practical case studies, she illustrated how human rights frameworks can be operationalized in climate litigation, shedding light on the complexities and challenges inherent in this integration.

The second presentation of the session was delivered by Dr. Sam Varvastian. Lecturer in Law at the Cardiff University, who discussed the topic of “Linking Climate Change and Plastic Pollution from a Human Rights Perspective.”[15] Inspired by his article titled “The Role of Courts in Plastic Pollution Governance,” Dr. Varvastian illuminated the increasingly vital role of courts in addressing plastic pollution governance. Through a compelling narrative, he underscored the escalating crisis of plastic pollution and highlighted the pivotal role courts play in mitigating it. Dr. Varvastian argued that existing regulatory measures are fragmented and inadequate, resulting in a surge of legal cases worldwide. Drawing on case studies from LAC, he demonstrated how courts have emerged as key players in holding polluters accountable, interpreting human rights within environmental contexts, and advocating for higher regulatory standards. His analysis detailed various approaches to regulating the plastic lifecycle, spanning waste movement, product-specific regulations, and chemical substance controls, while emphasizing the significant influence courts wield in shaping these regulatory frameworks across different jurisdictions. The key contribution of this presentation was that it elucidated the pressing need for cohesive legal frameworks to address the pervasive issue of plastic pollution. By spotlighting regulatory deficiencies and emphasizing the pivotal role of courts in enforcing higher standards, it provided a global and regional perspective on judicial responses to this environmental crisis and valuable insights and strategies to combat plastic pollution.

Finally, Dr. Sahar Shah, Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol, presented some insights on her PhD thesis. The presentation was titled “Remythologising Law: The Case of the Alberta Tar Sands.” Dr. Shah examined whether legal actions are ‘remythologising’ the tar sands by focusing on Indigenous treaty rights and environmental impacts. The presentation delved into several significant cases, including Beaver Lake Cree and Blueberry River First Nations’ litigation against the Crown for treaty violations. Dr. Shah argued that Indigenous legal actions challenge traditional narratives of Canadian law by incorporating Indigenous legal traditions and perspectives, potentially transforming the legal approach to tar sands extraction. She introduced the discursive tool of “myths” to portray how they help to explains the imaginative and invisible grip of law, asserting that myth is an inevitable part of legal narratives. Dr. Shah’s analysis drew on the “tragic” worldviews myths related to intellectual rigidity, seriousness, and devotion to abstraction, and “comic” worldviews of myths related to intellectual flexibility, irreverence, physical embodiment, advocating for the later since they represent a more flexible and inclusive legal narrative. The presentation suggested that a “remythologising” process is needed—one that shifts from colonial-capitalist myths to those rooted in Indigenous legal orders. This process involves addressing not only the cumulative effects of extractivism but also its underlying colonial-capitalist structures. By engaging with Indigenous legal concepts rather than merely Indigenous perspectives, Canadian courts have the opportunity to enact significant transformations. This transformative potential was highlighted through the analysis of past and ongoing legal battles, reflecting the strategic engagement of Indigenous groups with settler law to achieve material changes.

During the Q&A session, attendees raised pertinent questions regarding the ongoing development of doctrines and the harmonization of international human rights and climate change law, emphasizing the necessity for continuous updates. Discussions ensued regarding the elusive nature of concepts such as “pollution” and “plastic pollution,” which can hinder efforts to precisely target the causes and nature of environmental conflicts. Speakers were afforded the opportunity to expound upon their positions and clarify their analytical stances in response to these inquiries. Additionally, there was a reaction toward the significance of considering law from perspectives outside the legal mainstream, with an acknowledgment of the influential role of myths in shaping certain Western notions and dismantling existing myths, underscoring the discursive and narrative essence of law. Audience members also expressed concerns regarding climate activism’s adherence to democratic principles both locally and internationally, as well as the commensurability of Indigenous cosmologies with Western legal frameworks. Although the audience wished to continue the debate, time constraints necessitated its conclusion, but informal discussions persisted throughout the remainder of the refreshment break and in the lobbies of the X Block building at UWE, culminating in a casual gathering with the speakers.

The engagement of the UWE community and external participants has spurred networking ideas, facilitating fluid communication channels between various universities in the Southwest. This provides an ideal platform for future collaborative events and the dissemination of research. The ELSRG envisages continuing to engage in such academic gatherings with a clear pursuit of leadership in addressing global environmental and social problems.

[1] Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘Climate Change Litigation Databases’ (2022) http://climatecasechart.com accessed 1 June 2024

[2]C F Sabel and W H Simon, ‘Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds’ (2004) 117 Harvard Law Review 1016

[3] C Rodríguez Garavito, Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action (CUP 2022).

[4] IPCC, ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2023) 5.

[5] World Meteorological Organization, State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2022 Report (WMO-No. 1322, World Meteorological Organization, 5 July 2023).

[6] F Cavedon-Capdeville et al, ‘An Ecocentric Perspective on Climate Litigation: Lessons from Latin America’ (2023) Journal of Human Rights Practice XX 1-18.

[7]F Cavedon-Capdeville et al, Ibid. (n 7); and J Auz, ‘Human Rights-Based Climate Litigation: A Latin American Cartography’ (2022) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment.

[8] See Auz Ibid (n 8).

[9] M A Tigre, ‘It Is (Finally) Time for an Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities on a Trio of Initiatives’ (2024) 17 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 623.

[10]J Auz, ‘The Political Ecology of Climate Remedies in Latin America and the Caribbean: Comparing Compliance between National and Inter-American Litigation’ (2024) Journal of Human Rights Practice 16(1) 182-207.

[11] Ibid. n 8.

[12] The comment is based on the book insights of N M Perrone, Investment Treaties and the Legal Imagination: How Foreign Investors Play By Their Own Rules (Oxford, 2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Mar. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198862147.001.0001, accessed 6 June 2024.

[13] See C Rodríguez Garavito, Ibid. (n 3); and A Savaresi and J Setzer, ‘Rights-based litigation in the climate emergency: mapping the landscape and new knowledge frontiers’ (2022) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 7-34 https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.0002.

[14] A L Venn, ‘Rendering International Human Rights Law Fit for Purpose on Climate Change’ (2023) Human Rights Law Review 23(1) Article ngac034 https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngac034

[15] S Varvastian, ‘The role of courts in plastic pollution governance’ (2023) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 72(3) 635-669 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000179.  

By Chetana Rukshani Karunatilaka PhD Candidate at the Bristol Law School, UWE

On 27 March 2024, the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group (ELSRG) hosted an event under the theme of ‘Sustainability at the Core of Postgraduate Research at UWE’. The event aimed to discuss how the concept of sustainability is embedded into the doctoral research conducted by the PhD researchers at UWE. The event consisted of two sessions, with a total of five talks covering various issues related to sustainability. Three of the postgraduate researchers represented the College of Business and Law (CBL) while two were from the College of Arts, Technology and Environment (CATE).  

Session one

During session one, chaired by Prof. Svetlana Cicimil, two doctoral students from CATE presented their doctoral work and its relationship with sustainability.

The first presenter, Omar Abdelwahab, a third-year PhD researcher affiliated with the Sustainable Economies Research Group, explored the role of ethics and values within the environmental consultancy sector. Omar thoroughly examined the relationship between values, ethics, and environmental consultancy, explaining how his research studied the place of values and ethics within environmental consultancy, consultants and professional bodies, intending to achieve long-term sustainable objectives.

The second speaker of the session, Faten Hatem is a PhD researcher who is currently in her second year of studies. She is affiliated with the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environment. Faten discussed the integration of collaborative intelligence into place-based engagement methods as part of a long-term approach to smart city development that focuses on sustainability. She provided valuable insights into the use of novel creative methods and data that can be useful in developing a sustainable approach to smart city development. Faten analysed the roles and needs of various smart city stakeholders and highlighted the importance of engaging vulnerable groups, including the disabled, working class, youth, and elderly, in discussions on air pollution and climate change. She emphasized the need for innovative methods that can bring about a change in attitude and behaviour through activation, given the trend of setting goals such as net-zero, climate-natural, and low carbon.

After the presentation, the audience was allowed to discuss and comment on the topic. Prof. Svetlana Cicimil, who was the chair of the session, led this discussion. Several participants and the Chair raised questions, and both the presenters were able to provide answers to clarify these sustainability concepts within their research scope. It stimulated a thought-provoking discussion among the academic and professional community who attended the event.

Before the commencement of session two, Dr. Bernard Gross, Director of the Doctoral Academy at UWE, addressed the gathering. He explained ‘sustainability’ as a concept and how the Doctoral Academy assists postgraduate researchers to conduct doctoral research sustainably.

Session two

Dr. Onita Das chaired the second session of the event and three Doctoral students from CBL talked about the nexus between their doctoral research and the concept of sustainability. Sachini Welandawe, who is a second-year PhD student, is a member of the Governance and Accountability Research Group. She delivered a presentation about the impact of sustainable investment on the stock performance of firms in the UK: ESG performance and risk. She explained how environmental and social governance has become a significant consideration in the investment decision-making process. She explained that there is an urgent need to conduct in-depth research on the implication of ESG considerations on the financial performance of firms.

The second speaker of the session, Cristian Heredia Ligorria, is a first-year doctoral student at Bristol Law School and is also a member of the ELSRG. Cristian explored the role of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR) with special reference to sustainability and climate justice in Latin America and the Caribbean. The presentation delved into the pivotal role of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in advancing climate justice within the region. His talk shed light on the potential of climate litigation to protect vital ecosystems for climate stability and sustainability while promoting social and economic development.

The final speaker for the day was Elena Ramirez Gonzalez. She is a first-year PhD student who is attached to the Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at UWE. Elena focused on the interesting concept of mutual nurturing among humans and non-humans, how this fundamental practice is employed to build leadership in the Andes and how it is employed to respond to climate change. She elaborated on how non-human earth beings play a vital role in the lives of the Quechua community Fortaleza Sacsayhuaman in Cusco, Peru. The concept of mutual nurturing refers to a reciprocal correlation that humans have created and reinforced with the non-human and sustainable environment over time. She described it as a conversation process with natural beings. She further explored how this concept creates a significant impact on practising leadership within everyday life and when facing external conflicts such as environmental or social crisis.

As the second session came to an end, Dr. Onita Das opened the floor for comments and questions. The audience provided proactive feedback on the presentations made during the second session of the event, which led to interesting discussions. The participants provided feedback on the presentations paving the way to improve the doctoral research of the presenters.

This successful PGR event on sustainability was well-attended by undergraduate and postgraduate students, alumni, academics and NGOs.

By Chetana Rukshani Karunatilaka and Cristian Heredia Ligorria, PhD Candidates at the UWE Bristol Law School.

On Wednesday, 7^th of February 2024, the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group (ELSRG) hosted a roundtable discussion on environmental crime. The event consisted of two sessions, with a total of five speakers covering various topics related to environmental crime in the UK and worldwide.

An experienced environmental Barrister, Brendon Moorhouse from 6 Pump Court Chambers (London) spoke about environmental crimes in the UK, specifically related to water. He discussed the challenges faced by the Office of Environmental Protection and the practical issues surrounding sewer outflows, including the differences between dry and rainy weather conditions. Moorhouse also explained the role and powers of the Water Services Regulatory Authority (Ofwat) and the Environment Agency, the primary water utility regulators in the UK. During his presentation, Mr. Moorhouse shared real-world examples of criminal prosecution and control by the Environment Agency, including permits, enforcement undertakings, and civil sanctions. He highlighted the difficulties in bringing evidence to prove environmental harm and explained the elements of prosecution, including proving unlawful water discharge or breaches of permit conditions. Additionally, he discussed cases of water pollution in tourist destinations like Cornish beaches.

Dominic Dyer, a Board Member of Wildlife & Countryside Link and Chair of Wildlife Crime Group, gave an insightful talk about the importance of addressing wildlife crime in Britain. He emphasized the need for the UK to lead the fight against illicit wildlife trade around the world. He pointed out that most wildlife crimes in England and Wales are not recorded centrally and criticized some of the outdated legislation for prosecuting wildlife criminals. Dyer discussed the significance of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as the primary legislation for safeguarding key species and biodiversity in the UK. He provided real-life examples of wildlife crimes in the UK, such as the persecution of badgers and raptors, along with issues related to fox hunting. Towards the end of his talk, he highlighted the interconnection between protecting wildlife and human lives. He called for better enforcement of existing laws rather than new legislation.

Following the presentation, the floor was open for discussion and comments. The chair for the session, Professor Jona Razzaque, led the discussion. A number of questions were raised by the participants and the panellists as well as other experts who attended the event contributed to the fruitful discussion on the crimes related to water sewer outflows and wildlife crimes in the UK.

The second session of the roundtable commenced with a presentation on illegal wildlife trade in a global context delivered by Chetana Rukshani Karunatilaka, a PhD candidate at the Bristol Law School, UWE, who is also a member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group (ELSRG). She started the presentation by providing a brief explanation of what illegal wildlife means in a global context. She flagged illegal wildlife trade as a unique crime based on two arguments, namely the impact it creates on the world and the victims of the crime. Karunatilaka discussed the international legal framework for regulating illegal wildlife trade, including binding multilateral environmental treaties and non-binding United Nations regulations. She also mentioned a proposed binding protocol that could fill the gaps in the existing treaties. However, there are opposing opinions between the Global North and the Global South due to their diverse priorities. Karunatilaka emphasized the need for a multifaceted solution to this wildlife crime that balances the competing interests of the Global North and the Global South.

During the second session, Sue Miller, Head of Global Networks at the Stop Ecocide Foundation, discussed the importance of establishing ecocide as an international crime to address environmental damage. She defined ecocide as any unlawful acts that result in severe and widespread or long-term environmental damage. She argued that criminalizing ecocide would create personal liability and deterrence, unlike corporate fines. It could also lead to questioning the accountability of politicians and corporations for mass environmental destruction. Finally, Miller emphasized the role of civil society and politicians in supporting the ecocide movement to prevent environmental crimes.

The final speaker at the event was Professor Gerhard Kemp, who is a Criminal Law Professor at Bristol Law School, UWE. He spoke about reflections on individual and systemic environmental crimes in regional and international criminal justice. Building upon the arguments made in the previous presentation, Professor Kemp critically discussed the definition of ecocide and the challenges of harmonizing legal standards. He analysed the implications of incorporating recklessness as a standard for prosecuting international environmental crimes and argued that severe environmental harm is a public health emergency. He suggested that aligning it with existing crimes against humanity, such as murder and extermination, could help address the climate crisis. Finally, he proposed a realistic approach to prosecuting crimes against humanity using existing international legal frameworks.

After the presentations in the second session, Evadne Grant, the chairperson, opened the floor for discussion and feedback. The participants were particularly interested in the ecocide movement and how it could bring changes to the existing international environmental laws. The audience provided proactive feedback on the presentations made during the second session of the roundtable, which led to interesting discussions. This successful roundtable discussion was well-attended by undergraduate and postgraduate students, alumni, academics, NGOs, and professionals from various industries.