Uncategorised | Bristol Law School blog

This blog post is part of a series of posts published by the Research In Public International Law Group.

Introduction

The recent US-Israeli attack against the sovereign nation of Iran – which included the deadly bombing of a primary school, killing more than 150 children and wounding over 100, as well as the killing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with several family members – presents a textbook example for the war crimes and the crime of aggression. This blog post focuses primarily on the jurisdictional hurdles involved in prosecuting the crime of aggression. It demonstrates how the proposed amendments to the jurisdictional provisions for the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute, and a Ukraine-style special tribunal, could provide some potential pathways for navigating these hurdles. It first briefly outlines how the attack constitutes both a war crime and a crime of aggression, followed by an analysis of the jurisdictional obstacles for the crime of aggression and their navigation, before placing the crime of aggression in a historical context to make a case for hope.

The attack constituting crime of aggression and war crime

The attack constitutes a manifest violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force. Furthermore, there appears to be no reasonable claim to the exercise of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter (Quénivet 2026). Consequently, the invasion of the sovereign state of Iran and the bombardment of its territory qualify as acts of aggression under Article 8 bis (1) and (2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), rendering those in authority responsible for the crime of aggression. Specifically, the Head of State and Head of Government of the US and Israel – President Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu – as individuals in positions to effectively exercise control over or direct military action, bear apparent responsibility under Article 8 bis (1).

Moreover, during this international armed conflict under Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, the bombing of a primary school – a property being a civilian object protected under the Article 52 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions – may constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as per Article 8(2)(a) of the Rome Statute. Directing attacks at undefended schools and the killing of the civilian population and senior leadership may also constitute violations of the laws and customs applicable in an international armed conflict under Article 8(2)(b). These acts may amount to war crimes, particularly as they were undertaken as part of a coordinated US-Israeli plan or policy to topple the Iranian regime.

Aerial view from airplane showing a target

Pathways to accountability: navigating jurisdictional challenges for crime of aggression

The primary challenge is not whether these acts constitute specific crimes – as the law would suggest they do – but rather the difficulty of ensuring accountability within the framework of international criminal law. Under Article 15 bis and 15 ter of the Rome Statute, the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression committed by the national of a state if the state is a party to the Rome Statute, if the crime of aggression occurs on the territory of a state party or if the security council refers the crime of aggression to the prosecutor of the ICC.

Further, under Articles 15, 15 bis, and 16 of the Rome Statute, no investigation into the crime of aggression can proceed unless the UN Security Council makes a determination that an act of aggression has been committed by the state concerned. Alternatively, an investigation may proceed if the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC authorises it, provided the Security Council has not deferred the matter. Since the U.S., Israel, and Iran are non-parties, and the U.S. holds a permanent seat (and veto) on the Security Council (Article 27(3) UN Charter), a reference to the prosecution or non-deferral of investigation is unlikely, leaving the crime of aggression legally out of reach at the ICC.

However, the ongoing amendment review initiated by the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the ICC in July 2025 provides a potential solution to this jurisdictional hurdle, as the ASP is considering an amendment – proposed by Germany, Costa Rica, Slovenia, and several other states – to modify the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression. If implemented, the amendment would mean that if the state on whose territory the crime occurred, or the state whose national is accused of committing the crime, ratifies or accepts the amendment (provided it is already a State Party), then the ICC can exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a state chooses to remain a non-State Party or not to ratify the amendment, the Court could still exercise jurisdiction if that state lodges an Article 12(3) declaration with the ICC Registrar accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

This amendment would be highly relevant in holding Heads of State and other officials responsible for the US–Israeli attack on Iran. It would mean that Iran, even if it chooses to remain a non-State Party to the Rome Statute, could lodge an Article 12(3) declaration giving the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory. Article 12(3) declarations can apply retrospectively, as seen in the case of Ukraine, which filed a declaration in April 2014 accepting jurisdiction for crimes committed between 21 November 2013 and 22 February 2014.

However, whether the principle of non-retroactivity under Article 24 would preclude the retrospective effect of the amended provision – thereby preventing Iran from reaching back to the recent attacks by the US and Israel – is debatable. One could argue that while the procedural provisions would be amended, the substantive provisions (Articles 8 bis, 15 bis, and 15 ter of the Rome Statute) criminalising acts of aggression have been effective since July 2018, making the nullum crimen sine lege (no punishment without law) argument less persuasive. Nevertheless, one must wait and see, as the next ASP session will be convened in 2029 to consider the proposed amendments.

Meanwhile, a Council of Europe–style Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression, similar to the one established for Ukraine, could be considered. The necessity of such a tribunal stems from the fact that, within the current ICC legal framework, jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is limited to States Parties to the Rome Statute – a hurdle that currently prevents the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over the US-Israeli attack on Iran. In the absence of an exact parallel to the Council of Europe in Asia, the organisations that most closely resemble it – specifically regarding the formation of a tribunal by negotiating a statute with Iran and using the Ukraine model as a blueprint – could be the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which currently represents 57 states including Iran, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The SCO is the world’s largest regional organisation in terms of geographic area and population; it focuses on Eurasia and includes Russia, China, India, Iran and Pakistan, among others, as member states. Unlike the ICC, the Ukraine model would support trials in absentia. However, a downside of such a tribunal is that it may not be able to conduct the trial of a sitting Head of State, Head of Government, or other person in an official capacity unless they leave their position or their immunity is waived (Cosneanu 2025).

Accountability for international crimes: a challenging but hopeful case

Ultimately, bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice will be a long and challenging battle, though at the ICC these crimes are not subject to limitation period per Article 29 of the Rome Statute, given that international criminal justice is not without political influence. One can understand the challenges the ICC may face in this regard, when they consider the fact that the US imposed sanctions on the ICC judges and prosecutors once the ICC issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the situation in Palestine.

However, setbacks in prosecuting Heads of State and other senior government officials are not novel. The victors’ attempt to prosecute the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian massacre never saw the daylight, as the Treaty of Sèvres negotiated in Paris was never ratified by any Turkish regime. The attempt to prosecute the German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, also could not materialise, as the ‘special tribunal’ sanctioned by the Treaty of Versailles was never actually established and as the Netherlands refused to extradite him (Schabas 2012). An even-handed prosecution for the atrocities committed in the Second World War – by way of bringing to justice those responsible from the Allied forces, such as the Russian leadership for the Katyn Massacre of Polish citizens or the US leadership for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings or the UK-US leadership for the Dresden bombings – never materialised (Labuda 2024).. Even after all these setbacks, since we have precedents of successful prosecutions of Heads of State and senior officials, such as Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), or Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević and Rwandan Prime Minister (Interim) Jean Kambanda at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR) or Liberian President Charles Taylor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) – there is always hope for justice to prevail in the long run.

Conclusion

Finally, to echo Sir Thomas More, the celebrated English lawyer and Lord Chancellor, a question must be asked of us all: if the Devil were to turn around on us – if we remain silent now and passively accept this flagrant breach of international norms and a culture of impunity – where would we hide when our turn comes?

Participating in UNCITRAL working group II: reflections from the 83rd session in New York

Faculty of Business and Law | 11 March 2026

By Dr Nancy Siboe

In February 2026 I had the opportunity to attend the 83rd session of UNCITRALWorking Group II (Dispute Settlement) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. I participated as an observer at the invitation of the American Society of International Law and in my capacity as a UWE academic.

Walking into the UN conference rooms where international legal texts are negotiated was a striking experience. Around the table were State delegates from across the world, representatives of international organisations, arbitral institutions and accredited observers, all contributing to discussions that may ultimately shape the future of international dispute resolution.

Working Group II is responsible for UNCITRAL’s work on arbitration, mediation and related dispute resolution mechanisms. This session was chaired by Andrés Jana (Republic of Chile), who also serves as Vice-President of the International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce, and supported by the UNCITRAL Secretariat. The week’s discussions focused on how international dispute settlement frameworks should adapt to rapid technological change.

Artificial intelligence and the future of dispute resolution

One of the most fascinating themes throughout the session was the growing role of digital technologies in arbitration. Delegations discussed the increasing use of electronic communications, remote and hybrid hearings and the potential use of artificial intelligence tools within arbitral proceedings.

The conversation around AI was particularly lively. Delegates considered how AI might assist with tasks such as document review, legal research, case management and procedural administration. At the same time there was clear recognition that any use of AI must be carefully designed to protect core principles of dispute resolution: due process, transparency, party autonomy and equality of arms.

What made these discussions especially interesting was their global character. Delegations from jurisdictions including the United States, Israel, Finland, Russia, Cameroon, Bahrain, France and the Philippines offered different perspectives shaped by their own legal systems and policy priorities. Watching these viewpoints converge through negotiation and compromise offered a powerful illustration of UNCITRAL’s consensus based drafting process.

Alongside the formal plenary meetings, a series of colloquium panels brought together academics, practitioners and members of the judiciary. Leading arbitral institutions from major global centres were represented, including the London Court of International Arbitration, highlighting London’s continued importance as a hub for international arbitration.

One particularly thought-provoking moment came during a discussion of an AI assisted arbitrator model currently being trialled by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The concept involves an AI system assisting an arbitrator with aspects of decision making, subject to the express consent of the parties. The idea sparked extensive debate about accountability, oversight and the limits of algorithmic decision making in legal processes.

A memorable intervention came from H.E. Judge Sapna Jhangiani KC of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts of Appeal. She emphasised that while AI systems may be capable of mimicking legal reasoning, they do not truly reason. For that reason she argued they must remain subject to meaningful human control. Her remarks captured a broader concern echoed throughout the session: technological innovation must support rather than replace judicial responsibility.

From working group to the General Assembly: how international law is made

The Working Group also advanced work under the Dispute Resolution in the Digital Economy (DRDE) project. During the session delegates approved draft texts including recommendations on the interpretation of the New York Convention in relation to arbitral awards in electronic form, proposed amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and additions to the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings.

At the end of the week the Working Group adopted its draft report, which will now be submitted to the UNCITRAL Commission at its 59th annual session in 2026. If approved the outcomes may ultimately inform resolutions and legislative texts considered by the United Nations General Assembly. Observing this process offered a clear reminder that international law develops through patient negotiation, drafting and consensus building among States.

Reflections for research and teaching

For me personally the experience provided valuable insight into how debates about AI governance are unfolding in international legal institutions. As someone whose research focuses on the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence, hearing how States and arbitral institutions are thinking about the responsible integration of AI into legal processes was particularly valuable.
These discussions will inform my ongoing research on regulatory oversight, human control mechanisms and accountability in AI assisted adjudication. They will also enrich my teaching by offering students a clearer picture of how international legal norms are debated and developed in practice.

Leaving New York I brought back a small commemorative model of the United Nations Headquarters building, a reminder not only of the visit but also of the Law School’s growing engagement with international legal forums.

The Law School’s support in facilitating this participation is gratefully acknowledged.

Perspectives on post-conflict and post-atrocity accountability

Faculty of Business and Law | 18 February 20263 March 2026

By Noëlle Quénivet

On 16 February 2026, the Research in Public International Law Group of the Bristol Law School organised an event on “Perspectives on Post-Conflict and Post-Atrocity Accountability”. It welcomed Dr Fabricio Guariglia for a compelling and timely keynote on “Ongoing Accountability Efforts in Ukraine”. The event drew 30 staff and students, filling the room to capacity, with students attending from across our LLB and LLM in International Law and Conflict programmes. Their engagement throughout the session underscored both the relevance of these issues to their studies and the growing interest in international accountability among the next generation of legal practitioners. Dr Guariglia, who has served as defence counsel and victim representative in Argentina, held senior roles at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court, and now directs the International Development Law Organisation Hague office, drew on decades of experience to explore the legal institutional and human challenges posed by the ongoing conflict.

A system under pressure: Ukraine’s overnight transformation

A central theme of Dr Guariglia’s keynote was the extraordinary strain on Ukraine’s criminal justice system. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine already maintained a specialised war crimes unit. Yet this was nowhere near enough to cope with the explosion of violations across the country. Almost instantly, the entire judiciary pivoted into war crimes mode. Prosecutors and judges accustomed to working within structures shaped by the Soviet legacy found this model unworkable amid territorial occupation and mass displacement.

Investigators adapted quickly. Laptop-based field interviews replaced office-based procedures. Moreover, emergency laws and curfews led to a temporary collapse in ordinary crime. For a time, nearly the entire prosecutorial apparatus focused on atrocity crimes. But as refugees returned and daily life resumed, ordinary criminal caseloads surged once again, leaving legal professionals simultaneously managing conventional offences and a war crimes docket that now exceeds 200000 cases. Only a small proportion of these have progressed to trial, revealing longstanding structural gaps in prioritisation and case tracking.

International engagement and Ukraine as a “laboratory”

Recognising the scale of the challenge, Ukraine sought help from the international community. States contributed seconded personnel expert advisers and platforms for coordination. Dr Guariglia highlighted one major success. Four years on Ukrainian judges and prosecutors possess significantly greater expertise in international humanitarian and international criminal law. In many ways Ukraine has become a “laboratory” for international law, especially regarding the crime of aggression, committed on a scale and with a clarity of annexationist intent not seen in recent history.

Yet gaps remain. The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute the crime of aggression in Ukraine due to the Court’s jurisdictional requirements, creating a stark mismatch between the gravity of the wrongdoing and the existing accountability tools.

A conflict with many harms: gendered violence, environmental damage, and the targeting of children

Dr Guariglia noted that the war’s impact extends far beyond the battlefield. Gender-based violence is prevalent during war and women often seek refuge in neighbouring countries, where some become victims of exploitation and trafficking. The environmental damage caused by the conflict will stay for generations. And among the most troubling developments are the violations against children who were separated from their families, transferred to Russia, and subjected to systemic Russification efforts.

The challenge of linking crimes to perpetrators

Dr Guariglia highlighted two challenges. First, Ukraine’s legal system does not operate on a priority basis, in the sense that there is no effective case-mapping or prioritisation process. Prioritisation is happening in an organic rather than a systemic manner. Second, there are issues in establishing linkage evidence that is the connections between crimes and those responsible. Access to military intelligence and internal documents remains severely restricted, resulting in many cases stalling before trial. The use of the universal jurisdiction principle in other countries and the creation of a joint investigative team (with ICC participation) coordinated through Eurojust offer some hope, but meaningful justice will require decades of sustained work.

Panel Reflections: Limits and Opportunities in International Criminal Justice

The post-keynote panel broadened the discussion to consider global accountability efforts.

Slow but meaningful progress

Tanvir Hashem Munim (Lecturer at UWE and ICC Counsel) emphasised the slow pace of investigations and arrest warrants in relation to the situation in Myanmar. He highlighted that progress was made in various forums. The Government of Gambia initiated a case before the International Court of Justice and a case has started in Argentina using universal jurisdiction. In contrast other initiatives, such as those in Indonesia, have been rejected. Tanvir stressed that arrest warrants themselves can be victories, offering hope and signalling that impunity will not endure.

Aggression: the core crime still evading legal capture

Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne (Professor of International Law at the University of Bristol) highlighted the structural gap around the crime of aggression. Although Ukraine has cases before the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea none directly referred to aggression, leaving a critical aspect of the conflict unaddressed in formal legal terms. Also as Ukraine has largely lost these cases (except for those brought before the European Court of Human Rights) Russia has framed these outcomes as vindications, even when they do not reflect the broader context of the conflict.

The Ljubljana – the Hague Convention: a new tool with old challenges

Alison Bisset (Associate Professor at the University of Reading) presented the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention, the first global interstate treaty focused on cooperation in investigating and prosecuting international crimes. Driven by practitioner needs the Convention addresses jurisdiction extradition evidence sharing and victims’ rights. While it has the potential to reshape cooperation difficulties remain. It mirrors the UNTOC model which many states fail to use. It does not address immunities. It fails to refer to evidence gathering that is specific to international crimes (for example excavations). It provides much leeway to states to refuse cooperation on the basis of national security and it is overwhelmingly supported by European states raising questions about global uptake.

Conclusion: a generational struggle for justice

Dr Guariglia’s keynote and the subsequent panel offered a rich though realistic and sobering assessment of what justice looks like amid ongoing conflict. The work ahead is immense and will span generations. Yet legal institutions however imperfect remain essential. They document truth empower victims and gradually build pathways to accountability. For our students in the LLB and LLM programmes the event was both academically invaluable and deeply motivating illustrating the importance of their future roles in shaping global justice.

Strategic Human Rights Litigation

Faculty of Business and Law | 18 February 20263 March 2026

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.

How effective are Rights of Nature in further protecting whales?

Faculty of Business and Law | 21 November 202521 November 2025

From the inter- and intra-generational equity perspective (current and future generations)

Auriane Boileau, LLM student 2025

Amid growing momentum for ocean conservation, the movement to recognise the Rights of Nature is expanding and whales are part of it. By recognising and respecting the Rights of Nature, one has the power to shift the direction humanity is taking the planet Earth, for both current and future generations.

Annually 300,000 whales are killed as bycatch¹, with fishing gear ingestion a leading cause in the United Kingdom.² While Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to hunt whales despite a global ban on commercial whaling. Legal experts, scientists, policy-makers and ocean advocates should rethink environmental governance, analyse international legal gaps and propose stronger compliance mechanisms.

By integrating the Rights of Nature, whale species ought to be recognised as sentient beings with legal standing. This approach means that a treaty reform to protect oceanic life as a core responsibility to future generations is required.

Are current international legal frameworks effective enough in protecting whales in the context of future generations’ rights?

The international legal framework for whale protection has undergone a remarkable transformation, shifting from sustaining commercial exploitation to prioritising conservation.³

The foundation era (1946–1970s) was established through the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which evolved from managing whale stocks⁴ to implementing a comprehensive ban on commercial whaling⁵ through the 1982 International Whaling Commission moratorium.⁶

The framework’s effectiveness is strengthened by complementary regulatory instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions for marine mammals’ protection;⁷ the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora listing many endangered or threatened whale species under Appendix I;⁸ and core regulatory mechanisms such as whale sanctuaries in the Indian and Southern Oceans and an extensive global network of Marine Protected areas.⁹

Nevertheless, this effectiveness remains constrained by the systematic exploitation of legal loopholes and exemptions on aboriginal subsistence and scientific whaling under Article VIII of the ICRW.¹⁰ As demonstrated by the International Court of Justice’s 2014 ruling on Japan’s JARPA II program,¹¹ pro-whaling nations continue operations despite international prohibitions.¹² Such compliance failures exacerbate the scarcity of robust enforcement mechanisms within the institutional frameworks.¹³

Although the international legal framework has successfully reached global consensus on whale conservation, future effectiveness resides in a revised treaty on whaling, aligned with the Rights of Nature movement, to enhance compliance and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.

Whales and the Rights of Nature – toward legal recognition and protection for the benefit of current and future generations

Transitioning towards international legal frameworks on environmental conservation creates opportunities to integrate innovative juridical mechanisms that merge immediate environmental protection through the Rights of Nature movement and advocate for long-term stewardship via the intergenerational equity perspective.

As such, this convergence enables the establishment of dual guardianship systems, where ecological guardians advocate for Nature’s intrinsic rights¹⁴ and temporal guardians represent future generations’ interests. Thereby transcending traditional anthropocentric limitations.

Successful precedents include Ecuador’s constitutional commitment to make citizenship coexist with Nature and enforce its rights judicially and New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua Act granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River through appointed guardianship representation.¹⁵ Additionally, while Indigenous Māori and Pacific leaders called for whale legal personhood before the 2023 United Nations General Assembly, the He Whakaputanga Moana Treaty recognised whales as legal persons under international and indigenous frameworks.¹⁶

Academics have proven whales’ high intelligence capacity, often qualified as ‘self-conscious beings who can plan, hope and reflect on goals’, making them of primary moral concern.¹⁷

Nevertheless, while the Rights of Nature radically shift away from human-centred interests, the movement faces structural limitations as it still operates within human-created legal systems.¹⁸

The doubted effectiveness resides within weak legal enforcement, political corruption and regulatory captures that would persist under Rights of Nature frameworks unless directly addressed through coherent legal systems and strict monitoring.¹⁹

Way Forward

An improved future requires undertaking transformative legal reforms in whale conservation frameworks. Key measures include granting legal standing to guardians to represent whales’ intrinsic rights, strengthening existing legal regimes with Rights of Nature and intergenerational principles for better enforcement and accountability. Also supporting a United Nations resolution for a permanent commercial whaling ban alongside a “Declaration for the Rights of Whales”.

Innovative governance models are needed to reflect whales’ migratory and borderless nature. This involves mechanisms for documenting whales’ rights breaches, incorporating ecosystem-based management into decision-making processes and adopting adaptive approaches that evolve with scientific understanding.

Unlike territorially grounded natural entities, whales’ migratory status challenges traditional Rights of Nature frameworks. To ensure generational equity, domestic laws should embed Rights of Nature principles with clear compliance timelines. Internationally, whale rights must align with the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement,²⁰ recognising whales as part of the global commons and deserving transboundary protection.

This blog post expands on the author’s legal research project supervised by Dr. Onita Das, submitted in 2025.²¹

References

[1] International Whaling Commission, ‘The Bycatch Mitigation Initiative – Bycatch’ (IWC, 2025). ↩︎

[2] BBC News, ‘Hundreds of Whales Stranded on Scottish Island’ (BBC, 3 January 2020); Seaspiracy (dir Ali Tabrizi, Netflix 2021) 01:01:15. ↩︎

[3] International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (adopted 2 December 1946, entered into force 10 November 1948) 161 UNTS 72 (Preamble); P Birnie, ‘The Role of Developing Countries in Nudging the International Whaling Commission from Regulating Whaling to Encouraging Nonconsumptive Uses of Whales’ (1985) 12 Ecology L Q 939. ↩︎

[4] Birnie (n 3) 939; M Fitzmaurice, ‘The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and International Whaling Commission – Conservation or Preservation – Can the Gordian Knot Be Cut (or Untangled)?’ (2013) 5 Yearbook of Polar Law 459-461; C Pinon Carlarne, ‘Saving the Whales in the New Millenium: International Institutions, Recent Developments and the Future of International Whaling Policies’ (2005) 24 Va Env’l L J 32-33, 41. ↩︎

[5] Fitzmaurice (n 4) 473-474. ↩︎

[6] AE Boyle, C Redgwell and PW Birnie, Birnie, Boyle & Redgwell’s International Law and the Environment (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2021) 765. ↩︎

[7] Boyle et al (n 6) 750-751, 764; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3, Articles 65, 120, 194(5). ↩︎

[8] Fitzmaurice (n 4) 472; Birnie (n 3) 947; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975) 993 UNTS 243, Appendix I. ↩︎

[9] Boyle et al (n 6) 765; Fitzmaurice (n 4) 476; K Grorud-Colvert K et al, ‘The MPA Guide: A Framework to Achieve Global Goals for the Ocean’ (2021) 373 Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 1. ↩︎

[10] Fitzmaurice (n 4) 466-467, 473-474, 477; R Wichert and MC Nussbaum, ‘Scientific Whaling? The Scientific Research Exception and the Future of the International Whaling Commission’ (2017) 18 Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 360. ↩︎

[11] Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening) (Judgment) [2014] ICJ Rep 226. ↩︎

[12] See Boyle et al (n 6) 765; Pinon Carlarne (n 4) 45-46; M Mangel, ‘Whales, Science, and Scientific Whaling in the International Court of Justice’ (2016) 113 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 14525; R Wichert and MC Nussbaum (n 10) 360. ↩︎

[13] Pinon Carlarne (n 4) 45-46. ↩︎

[14] M Bender and R Bustamante, ‘Reimagining Fishing in the Anthropocene Through a Rights of Nature Lens’ (2024) 15 JHRE 163. ↩︎

[15] Ibid 165. ↩︎

[16] C Rodríguez-Garavito, DF Gruber, A Nemeth and G Beguš, ‘What If We Understood What Animals Are Saying? The Legal Impact of AI-Assisted Studies of Animal Communication’ (2025) 52(1) Ecology L Q 47. ↩︎

[17] PS Elder, ‘Legal Rights for Nature – the Wrong Answer to the Right(s) Question’ (1984) 22 Osgoode Hall L J 290. ↩︎

[18] J Bétaille, ‘Rights of Nature: Why It Might Not Save the Entire World’ (2019) 16 JEEPL 54, 57-58. ↩︎

[19] Ibid 63. ↩︎

[20] Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (adopted 19 June 2023, not yet in force) UN Doc A/CONF.232/2023/4. ↩︎

[21] This blog post therefore refers to the state of the law as of early September 2025. ↩︎

UWE Academics Analyse televised sentencing of criminal courts

Faculty of Business and Law | 3 July 20248 July 2024

Tom Smith, Marcus Keppel-Palmer (both Law), Sally Reardon and Bernhard Gross (both Journalism) recently published their initial analysis of the first 12 months of televised sentencing of criminal courts in England and Wales. Since July 2022, sentencing remarks by judges in Crown Court criminal trials have been filmed and broadcast; yet, despite Government comments lauding this major shift in access to courts, there has yet to be any official evaluation of the benefits, which have been assumed without question. As such, the UWE research team sought to analyse the first year of broadcasting (covering the period July 2022 to July 2022), assessing the types of cases televised and their media usage, with the aim of exploring whether this has in fact contributed to the principle of open justice in a meaningful way.

Overall, they concluded that – notwithstanding any theoretical benefits – the broadcasts offer a unique but limited view of the workings of criminal courts, falling short of the advancements claimed by some officials. Only 33 cases were filmed and uploaded to the ‘Sky News – Courts’ YouTube channel (the public repository for broadcasts), a small fraction of the total number of eligible cases in the first year. Moreover, this low number wasn’t due to refusals to allow filming; broadcast media made only 34 requests to broadcast, with one rejection by a court, indicating a highly selective approach to reporting (akin to the traditional visibility of physical courts through media reporting).

Broadcast cases generally involved extremely serious violence, with two-thirds being homicides, and victims mainly young or elderly. The researchers argue that this significantly skews the potential of broadcasting towards traditional news values (which focus on extreme and sensational crime); and failing to reflect the reality of most criminality, with implications for public understanding and awareness. Additionally, the argument that the public’s understanding of the actual processes of justice would be improved by broadcasting is questionable; only sentencing remarks were filmed, omitting most aspects of criminal justice processes (such as the trial itself) and excluding Magistrates’ Courts – where most crime is dealt with.

Overall, the researchers suggest that broadcasting hasn’t significantly expanded open justice. The portrayal of crime and sentencing remains focused on severe cases and lifelong imprisonment, ignoring common crimes like intimate partner violence, theft, assault, white-collar crimes, and drug offences. Of the 33 cases filmed, over half were not used in TV news bulletins, and only eight appeared in this key conduit for public awareness of current events. Usage of filmed footage by broadcast media was generally minimal, with excerpts often being short clips that failed to provide context, despite often lengthy sentencing remarks by judges. The media have therefore maintained a traditional approach to reporting on criminal courts, using brief clips with graphic descriptions and emotive language. YouTube views were modest, with only two videos surpassing 100,000 views, questioning the true expansion of open justice.

While broadcasts theoretically reveal previously unseen processes and are publicly accessible, their limited and selective nature restricts their impact. Cases selected for broadcast were similar to those covered using traditional methods, arguably doing little to enhance public understanding and engage interest in criminal proceedings in a realistic and representative manner. The researchers therefore concluded that future expansion in broadcasting – which seems inevitable – must go beyond merely changing the medium, and meaningfully extend open justice to truly reflect the reality of crime and justice processes.

Roundtable on “Unveiling the Power of Climate Change Litigation: Global Climate Justice from a Latin American and Caribbean Perspective”

Faculty of Business and Law | 27 June 2024

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.

New Level 7 Solicitor Apprenticeship Announced

Faculty of Business and Law | 12 June 202412 June 2024

UWE Bristol is delighted to announces its plans for the Level 7 Solicitor apprenticeship.

Following apprenticeship success in a number of areas such as business, engineering, healthcare and science, the university is pleased to be expanding into a new area of delivery. Bringing together its expertise in delivery of apprenticeship programmes combined with an established Law School, this exciting move is due to begin from September 2025.

Mark Coombs, Director of Teaching & Learning, Bristol Law School said: “Bristol Law School at UWE Bristol has a long record of providing outstanding teaching in academic and professional law. This new provision will help aspiring solicitors to reach their goals, and local law firms and in-house teams to grow and develop their organisations.

“Our course has been designed to offer the ideal balance of effective and supported learning, and practical experience, at little-to-zero cost to student and organisation. It’s win-win, and perfectly suited to the relatively new SQE route to qualification as a solicitor.”

Simon Flenley, Assistant Director of Apprenticeships said: “It is great to see our portfolio of apprenticeship programme offer expand. UWE Bristol has a long-established apprenticeship provision, supporting over 2,500 apprentices employed at over 500 different employers nationally.”

For more information about the Level 7 Solicitor apprenticeship, please contact jane.exon@uwe.ac.uk

Visit uwe.ac.uk for more information on our apprenticeship provision.

Sustainability at the Core of Postgraduate Research at UWE

Faculty of Business and Law | 11 April 202417 April 2024

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.

Roundtable on Environmental Crimes

Faculty of Business and Law | 7 March 20247 March 2024

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.

Category: Uncategorised

US-Israeli attack against Iran – Jurisdictional hurdles to prosecute the crime of aggression