UWE Bristol | Bristol Law School blog

College of Business and Law Research Showcase 2025

Faculty of Business and Law | 15 December 202515 December 2025

This week, the College of Business and Law hosted a research showcase bringing colleagues together under UWE Bristol’s RISE Beacon ‘Enriching Culture, Place and Community’. In his welcome address, Professor Andrew Simpson, Interim Dean for Research and Enterprise and Dean and Head of the Bristol Business School, stressed the relevance of this Beacon to the research conducted within the College. He also pointed out that the broad range of topics reflected how much “we care about the community we live in” and the researchers’ desire to make a positive impact on the private and public sectors.

The event featured rapid five-minute presentations across two panels. It was designed to foster collaboration and share research findings. Its intention was also to give researchers the opportunity to practice communicating projects concisely and clearly, a skill vital to making research accessible and understandable to the general public.

Panel 1: From responsibility to resilience: leadership, community and social transformation

The first panel explored leadership, responsibility and how communities navigate social transformation.

Marketing and psychology: bridging the gap between practice and academia

Dr Tom Bowden-Green opened with his work on marketing psychology and how individual differences shape people’s responses to marketing. He shared insights on social proof, his forthcoming book and the growing interest in turning this knowledge into revenue and commercial training.

Disqualification of directors and education requirements: supporting responsible directorship

Dr Neeti Shikha highlighted the pressures faced by UK company directors who have no formal training despite significant legal responsibilities. Her research uses behavioural economics to explore how targeted education could improve decision-making and reduce over-confidence, especially during periods of financial distress.

Enriching communities: leadership, liminality and liquidity

Professor Gareth Edwards drew on his book Community as Leadership to explore what we mean by community and the interaction between leadership and community. In this context, he stressed the importance of ethics, culture and place for communities. He emphasised the value of linking curiosity-driven and applied research and shared new conversations emerging from international partners.

Fostering community-led problem-solving

Dr Kay Galpin, Professor Carol Jarvis and Professor Hugo Gaggiotti presented a HEIF-funded project working with local authorities to trial new ‘design-thinking’ approaches that place residents, particularly under-represented groups, at the centre of service design. The aim is to shift power dynamics and embed empathy in decision-making despite resource pressures.

Informing justice – the Windrush scandal

Tamara Rundle, Associate Professor Rachel Wood and Professor Gerhard Kemp introduced research on the Windrush scandal. With many elder members of the Windrush community still without status and facing a difficult compensation system, the team is drawing on learning from international justice processes to inform the ongoing People’s Inquiry. Ms Rundle also reflected on the emotional weight of the work and the need for wider public storytelling.

Content creators and social media influencers’ mental health, wellbeing, and job performance

Dr Moya Lerigo-Sampson presented research on the mental health of influencers and content creators. Interviews show blurred boundaries between online and offline life and constant pressure to remain visible. The team is also exploring how digital communities can either support or strain wellbeing.

Panel 2: Justice, inclusion and lived experience: research for social change

The second panel focused on social justice and inclusion across policing, family law, higher education and public events.

Evaluating police responses to sexual violence against sex workers; reflections on multi-agency partnership working, problem solving and co-production

Associate Professor Duncan McPhee discussed a collaborative project with Gwent Police to understand police responses to violence against sex workers. Trust-building was central to the work, which included joint meetings, workshops and a major conference supported by HEIF funding.

Peace for children in our time? Why we need to increase our understanding of domestic abuse and work together

Emma Whewell highlighted the shocking statistic that one in five children experience domestic abuse, often with long-term effects on behaviour and wellbeing. She stressed that domestic abuse is frequently misunderstood, including within the judicial system. Her work has led to the creation of a new advisory group and training for judges and social workers.

The impact of hybrid working on Black women academics: productivity and visibility in post-COVID higher education

Dr Tinkuma Edafioghor shared findings from interviews with Black women academics navigating hybrid working post-Covid. Many described the pressure to hold everything together which feeds into the stereotype of ‘the strong back woman’ and managing cultural expectations and the challenges of visibility and career progression.

Deaf legal studies: how law understands, or fails to understand, deaf people

Dr Rob Wilks introduced his emerging field of Deaf Legal Studies, which explores how law often operates in ways that disadvantage deaf people. His work spans equality law, bilingual education and a recently launched Deaf Legal Association. He described the law as often ‘audist’ and emphasised the need for frameworks rooted in lived experience of deaf people.

Missing migrants: the psychosocial implications for their surviving families through the lens of Kübler-Ross’s five-stagemodel of grief

Dr Luke Eda presented research on families of missing migrants and how they navigate grief of their loved ones in ambiguous circumstances and with no closure. Using Kübler-Ross’s five-stage model, he explores how relatives find meaning and cope with ongoing uncertainty.

Making outdoor events more inclusive

Clare MacKay and Dr Ed Little closed the panel with research carried out on the experiences of people with dietary requirements at outdoor events. Feelings of anxiety and exclusion were common. The team’s work has influenced event organisers and attracted interest from industry press and festivals seeking to improve inclusion.

Future showcases coming up…

The showcase highlighted the breadth of applied and socially engaged research across the College. From director training to festival food, and from digital wellbeing to justice for Windrush families, the projects reflect RISE’s aim to enrich communities and support positive change.

For details of future showcases contact Sarah-Louise Weller or Noelle Quenivet.

Launch of Taxation, Human Rights and Sustainable Development: Global South Perspectives

Faculty of Business and Law | 25 November 202525 November 2025

The Research in Public International Law Group (RIPIL) of Bristol Law School (UWE), in collaboration with the International, Environmental and Human Rights Research Cluster at the University of Derby, recently hosted a hybrid launch event for Taxation, Human Rights and Sustainable Development: Global South Perspectives (2025: Routledge). The event brought together leading scholars to discuss the themes and contributions of this new edited collection.

The session was opened by Dr Eghosa Ekhator, Associate Professor of International Environmental Law at the University of Derby, who introduced the aims and significance of the book.

This book examines how human rights can help shape fairer tax systems and support sustainable development in the Global South. Drawing lessons from countries across the Global South, the book explores how human rights ideas can guide the design of effective tax systems. It also argues for including human rights and sustainable development considerations in tax policies and laws.

Keynote speaker Professor Damilola S. Olawuyi SAN:

Professor Olawuyi delivered the keynote address, offering insights into how the book explains the links between tax systems, economic development and environmental sustainability. By focusing on the Global South, particularly Africa, the book provides a timely and necessary contribution to global debates on fairness, governance and sustainable development.

Professor Gerhard Kemp:

Professor Kemp, sustainability lead for UWE Bristol Law School, discussed how the complex issues of taxation, human rights and sustainability can be integrated into the law curriculum, noting that the book is a helpful guide and a valuable resource for research-led curriculum design. Kemp also connected the book’s central theme to current international priorities, including the G20’s theme for 2025: Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability.

Professor Chrispas Nyombi:

Professor Nyombi spoke about the book’s introduction, stating that it opens with a clear overview by the editors, who show the connection between taxation, human rights and sustainable development as a key area of study (Ekhator, Richards & Onyejekwe, p. 1). They argue that taxation is not just a way to raise money but an important tool for governments to meet their social and economic responsibilities. This perspective is especially important in the Global South, where the effects of colonialism and past economic exploitation have created inequalities that persist today.

Dr Adaeze Okoye:

Dr Okoye addressed the themes of the book, stating:

“Overall, the book presents many unique chapters that share the theme of tax and sustainable development. This book could be very helpful for teaching in these areas. Importantly, it fills a research gap by including Global South voices on tax, fiscal policy and human rights, using the language of sustainable development. Several of the themes in this book would be essential reading for government actors as they balance taxation with building infrastructure, promoting digital inclusion, responding to global organisations and meeting local needs. It serves as important reading for understanding tax and sustainable development and offers practical ideas that could help guide future policy.”

A thoughtful and inspiring discussion

Across the session, speakers explored how tax laws and policies can both shape and be shaped by human rights and why integrating human rights principles into tax governance is essential for achieving sustainable development. The conversation also highlighted the responsibilities of governments, the role of international standards and the importance of taxpayer trust and participation.

Closing reflections

Co-editor Dr Chisa Onyejekwe closed the event with her reflections on the discussions:

“We are grateful to all the editors, speakers and participants who contributed to a rich and stimulating event. The reviews and discussion highlighted the idea that human rights should play an important role in how governments raise revenue and design tax systems. For countries in the Global South, it should be an obligation to consider human rights in their tax policies and legislation, as they need a sustainable revenue source to meet their social and economic responsibilities, of which tax revenue is one.”

About the book

Taxation, Human Rights and Sustainable Development: Global South Perspectives looks at the relationship between human rights and taxation, showing how tax policies can either help or hinder human rights and what this means for sustainable development.

Using examples from countries across the Global South, the book highlights the benefits of including human rights in tax laws and governance. It covers topics such as compliance, redistribution, e-commerce, tax havens and the roles of key stakeholders in shaping fair and sustainable tax systems.

The book is recommended for researchers and practitioners working in law, human rights, taxation, governance and development.

Translating collective international climate goals into adequate individual state contributions

Faculty of Business and Law | 7 March 20227 March 2022

By Marcus Liedtke, member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group

The recent Glasgow climate conference (COP 26) once again highlighted that the international community falls far short of its ambitious collective goals set out in the Paris Agreement^[1] (PA), especially to limit global warming ‘to well below 2°C’[2] and possibly 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.^[3]

‘Individuation’ as a central and urgent challenge in international climate change law

A crucial but often neglected question in this regard is how to effectively translate collective international mitigation goals into adequate individual state contributions in order to ensure as far as possible that the collective goal is met.^[4] Such a translation – or ‘individuation’[5] – is not only of political but also of legal importance, given that considerable voices[6] assume that the PA’s long-term temperature goal creates a collective obligation.[7] While 2°C arguably constitute the desired minimum mitigation outcome, the 1.5°C goal forms a mere obligation of conduct.[8] Whether COP 26’s attempts to encourage enhanced immediate collective and individual state action towards closing the emissions gap and limiting global warming ideally even to 1.5°C will prove successful in practice, remains to be seen.[9]

An ‘individuation mechanism’[10] to bridge the gap between individual state ambition and the collective temperature goal should strike a careful balance between competing demands both in terms of practical effectiveness and conceptual design, especially between bottom-up and top-down approaches.[11]

Shortcomings of the Paris Agreement

The PA, recognising different national circumstances, attempts to achieve its long-term objective primarily based on bottom-up nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[12] However, despite some improvements resulting from the supplementary 2018 Paris Rulebook,[13] the current rules are insufficient to incentivise states to closely align state-level ambition with the collective temperature goal.[14] The PA especially contains only vague self-differentiation criteria[15] and does not ensure appropriate comparability, reliability and reflectiveness of NDCs, so that these tend to be self-centred and uncoordinated.[16] The transparency framework[17] and compliance mechanism[18] are unable to compensate these deficits in the bottom-up architecture.[19] The rules governing the global stocktake[20] which is to take place every five years,[21] by contrast, offer some potential to use it as an individuation mechanism.[22] This would, however, only lead to ex-post adjustments of individual state contributions and depend on the political willingness of states.[23]

Previous approaches

While the PA so far falls short of its collective goals in practice,[24] both the Framework Convention (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (KP) at least partly effectively achieved their key targets.[25] This did, however, not result from a convincing individuation mechanism. On the contrary, the UNFCCC’s predominantly bottom-up approach[26] and the KP’s top-down emission reduction targets[27] – unlike the PA –[28] display a strong bifurcation between developed and developing countries and thus address only a small share of global emissions.[29]

Lessons from the European Union

To resolve its joint contribution under the PA into member state commitments, the European Union (EU) has to conduct a similar exercise to the one required at global level.[30] It relies upon a comprehensive legal framework to ensure adequacy, coherence and achievement of its ambitious collective and member state-level climate goals.[31] As the EU approach – balancing top-down[32] and bottom-up[33] elements of individuation – has enabled it to so far mostly effectively meet its collective targets,[34] it can in many regards inspire an individuation mechanism for the PA. Under the Effort Sharing Regulation, for instance, the collective EU 2030 mitigation target enshrined therein is broken down into individual minimum state contributions.[35] While it is upon EU member states themselves to decide how to achieve these,[36] the regulatory framework also envisages corrective action plans[37] and a critical dialogue with the European Commission on individual mitigation action.[38] Further lessons from the EU include enhanced individuation over time,[39] transparency,[40] depoliticisation of the process,[41] and well-designed flexibilities.[42]

Designing an effective individuation mechanism

A key feature of an effective individuation mechanism for the PA should therefore be a regular constructive dialogue on the consistency of the states’ individual mitigation ambition with the long-term temperature goal and more precise collective interim goals.[43] To this end, a scientific body should determine and publish a fair-share range of individual ambition in line with the collective temperature goal,[44] preferably based on the criteria of mitigation capacities, environmental integrity and intergenerational equity.[45] Another independent body should then regularly assess the adequacy of current individual contributions in that light.[46] Where states wish to deviate from its recommendations, they should publicly state their reasons to facilitate institutional, public and political scrutiny and peer pressure.[47] The constructive dialogue would thereby largely preserve the bottom-up dynamic of the PA, while creating additional top-down incentives for more regular and objective equity reflections.[48] It could thus well complement a strengthened global stocktake.[49]

Furthermore, states still struggling with capacity limitations should be allowed to use limited flexibilities.[50] To encourage also developing countries to make an as ambitious contribution as possible and avoid delaying of mitigation action, these flexibilities should, however, only be available as a last resort.[51] This would especially require that the respective state cannot deliver its full adequate contribution otherwise, even after exhausting available support which developed countries should provide as part of their fair share.[52]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most promising way to translate collective international mitigation goals into adequate individual state contributions in order to ensure as far as possible that the collective goal is met would be a constructive dialogue between states and an independent body based on suitable equity criteria. Further refinement of the international legal framework thus seems necessary.

This blog post builds upon the author’s LLM dissertation submitted in 2021.[53]

[1] Paris Agreement (opened for signature 22 April 2016, entered into force 4 November 2016) 4/2017 UKTS 9365.
[2] PA art 2(1)(a).
[3] Ibid; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Decision -/CMA.3 Glasgow Climate Pact (13 November 2021) Advance unedited version [3], [5], [22]-[23], [25]-[26] available at <https://unfccc.int/documents/310497> accessed 27 December 2021.
[4] T Etty et al, ‘The End of a Decade and the Dawn of a Climate Resistance’ (2020) 9 Transnational Environmental Law 1, 7; A Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation and Individual Ambition in the Paris Agreement’ (2020) 9 Transnational Environmental Law 165, 179-180, 187-188.
[5] Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 165, 167.
[6] Pointing e.g. to the mandatory wording of article 3 PA (‘As nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts (…) with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement as set out in Article 2.’ (emphasis added)).
[7] A Huggins and M Karim, ‘Shifting Traction: Differential Treatment and Substantive and Procedural Regard in the International Climate Change Regime’ (2016) 5 Transnational Environmental Law 427, 438; A Huggins, ‘The evolution of differential treatment in international climate law: Innovation, experimentation, and “hot” law’ (2018) 8 Climate Law 195, 204; Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 169-174; G Winter, ‘Armando Carvalho and Others v. EU: Invoking Human Rights and the Paris Agreement for Better Climate Protection Legislation‘ (2020) 9 Transnational Environmental Law 137, 144. Similarly, J Pickering et al, ‘Global Climate Governance Between Hard and Soft Law: Can the Paris Agreement’s “Crème Brûlée” Approach Enhance Ecological Reflexivity?‘ (2019) 31 Journal of Environmental Law 1, 23.
[8] As already the wording of article 2(1)(a) PA suggests (‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’) (emphasis added). See also L Rajamani, ‘Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretative Possibilities and Underlying Politics’ (2016) 65 ICLQ 493, 496-497 (differentiating between a ‘“well below 2°C” target and aspirational 1.5°C goal’ (emphasis added)); M Rouxel, ‘The Paris Rulebook’s Rules on Transparency: A Compliance Pull?’ (2020) 14 CCLR 18, 20 (regarding the similarly framed obligation of individual states in view of aiming to achieve their NDC in PA art 4(2)).
[9] UNFCCC Glasgow Climate Pact (n 3) [20]-[23], [26]-[29].
[10] Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 167.
[11] See also Rajamani (n 8) 493-494; C Voigt and F Ferreira, ‘”Dynamic Differentiation”: The Principles of CBDR-RC, Progression and Highest Possible Ambition in the Paris Agreement’ (2016) 5 Transnational Environmental Law 285, 291.
[12] See especially PA art 4.
[13] See e.g. UNFCCC Conference of the Parties Decision 4/CMA.1 Further guidance in relation to the mitigation section of decision 1/CP.21 attached as an addendum to the Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on the third part of its first session, held in Katowice from 2 to 15 December 2018 (19 March 2019) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.1 [7] read in conjunction with Annex I [6] and [7(b)] (which makes it mandatory for each state to explain how it considers its NDC to be ‘fair and ambitious’ including a reflection on equity and how it contributes to the collective temperature-, global peaking- and greenhouse gas (GHG) neutrality-objectives); Rouxel (n 8) 28, 34.
[14] Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 179, 182-188.
[15] See e.g. PA art 4(3) (which merely refers to the general notions of ‘highest possible ambition’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDR-RC) ‘in the light of different national circumstances’); M Doelle, ‘Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses’ in D Klein et al (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (OUP 2017) 379, 385; J Friedrich, ‘Global Stocktake (Article 14)’ in D Klein et al (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and Commentary (OUP 2017) 330.
[16] H Winkler et al, ‘Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed‘ (2018) 18 International Environmental Agreements 99, 103, 112; Rouxel (n 8) 33, 35, 38; Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 168-169, 179-184, 188.
[17] PA art 13.
[18] PA art 15.
[19] Rouxel (n 8) 20, 23, 35, 38; H van Asselt, ‘International climate change law in a bottom-up world’ (2016) 26 Questions of International Law 5, 9; Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 185-186.
[20] PA art 14; UNFCCC Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Decision 19/CMA.1 Matters relating to Article 14 of the Paris Agreement and paragraphs 99–101 of decision 1/CP.21 annexed as an addendum to the Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on the third part of its first session, held in Katowice from 2 to 15 December 2018 (19 March 2019) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.2.
[21] PA art 14(2).
[22] Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 186-188; A Zahar, ‘Collective Progress in the Light of Equity Under the Global Stocktake’ (2019) 9 Climate Law 101, 101, 112-113, 116-118, 121.
[23] Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 186. See also Friedrich (n 15) 321; M Peeters, ‘Article 14 The Global Stocktake’ in G Van Calster and L Reins (eds), The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Commentary (Edward Elgar Publishing 2021) 331.
[24] See n 3 above; UNFCCC Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement Synthesis report by the secretariat (26 February 2021) UN Doc FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/2 [13], [135], [136].
[25] D Bodansky, J Brunnée and L Rajamani, International Climate Change Law (OUP 2017) 133; B Mayer, The International Law on Climate Change (CUP 2018) 42.
[26] See e.g. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (opened for signature 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107 (UNFCCC) art 4(1)(a) and (b) (pursuant to which all Parties shall periodically communicate national GHG inventories and develop national programmes containing mitigation and adaption measures); Mayer (n 25) 37-38; J Peel, ‘Climate Change’ in A Nollkaemper et al (eds), The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law (CUP 2017) 1022.
[27] Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (opened for signature 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162 (KP) art 3(1) read in conjunction with Annex B.
[28] See e.g. PA art 4(2) (which contains no differentiation (‘Each Party’)); Voigt and Ferreira (n 11) 295, 297; Bodansky, Brunnée and Rajamani (n 25) 223; B Lahn, ‘In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris’ (2018) 18 International Environmental Agreements 29, 30.
[29] See e.g. UNFCCC art 4(2)(a) (obliging only developed countries and countries in transition to becoming a market economy (Annex I-Parties) to limit their GHG emissions and report in detail on their mitigation measures with the internationally determined but non-binding aim ‘of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels’ (UNFCCC art 4(2)(b)); KP art 3(1) read in conjunction with Annex B (imposing binding ambitious quantified emission reduction targets only on developed countries); Rajamani (n 8) 494, 507, 509; Voigt and Ferreira (n 11) 287, 290, 295; Mayer (n 25) 39-40.
[30] See also M Peeters and N Athanasiadou, ‘The continued effort sharing approach in EU climate law: Binding targets, challenging enforcement?’ (2020) 29 RECIEL 201, 209-210.
[31] See especially Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 [2018] OJ L156/26 (Effort Sharing Regulation or ESR); Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2018] OJ L328/1 (Governance Regulation); Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) [2021] OJ L243/1 (ECL).
[32] See e.g. ESR preambular recital 2, art 1, 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I (setting out binding 2030 emission reduction targets for individual member states in the ESR sectors ranging from -0% (e.g. for Bulgaria) to -40 % (e.g. for Sweden)); Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 201-203, 210; K Kulovesi and S Oberthür, ‘Assessing the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework: Incremental change toward radical transformation?’ (2020) 29 RECIEL 151, 157.
[33] EU member states, for instance, decide themselves how they wish to achieve their reduction targets under the ESR and are to set out their measures in their integrated national energy and climate plans (NECPs) to be submitted under the Governance Regulation; see Governance Regulation art 3, 4(a)(1)(i), Annex I Part 1 (2.1.1.), (3.1.1.)(i.); ESR preambular recital 23; Kulovesi and Oberthür (n 32) 153; Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 205.
[34] European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2020 report on the State of the Energy Union pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action’ (Commission Report) COM (2020) 950 final 2; European Commission, ‘Kick-starting the journey towards a climate-neutral Europe by 2050 – EU Climate Action Progress Report November 2020’ (Commission Report) COM (2020) 777 final 6-10.
[35] ESR art 1, 4 in conjunction with Annex I and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/2126 of 16 December 2020 on setting out the annual emission allocations of the Member States for the period from 2021 to 2030 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2020] OJ L426/58.
[36] See n 33 above.
[37] See e.g. ESR art 8(1); Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 207.
[38] See e.g. ESR art 8(3) (pursuant to which the European Commission is entitled to issue an opinion on the corrective action plan which the respective member state ‘shall take utmost account of’); Governance Regulation art 9(2) and (3), 29(5)(b), 30(1), 34; Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 207-208.
[39] See e.g. ECL preambular recital 30, art 4(1) (requiring the EU and its member states to ‘prioritise swift and predictable emission reductions’), 4(3)-(5) (requiring the European Commission to develop an intermediate 2040 target and an indicative EU GHG emissions budget for 2030-2050). See also Kulovesi and Oberthür (n 32) 156; D Torney and R O’Gorman, ‘Adaptability versus certainty in a carbon emissions reduction regime: An assessment of the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework’ (2020) 29 RECIEL 167, 175.
[40] See e.g. ECL art 4(4) (laying the ground for a transparent quantification of an EU trajectory by the European Commission, which makes progress more measurable and adds to predictability for individual states and economic actors); Torney and O’Gorman (n 39) 174-176.
[41] See e.g. ECL art 3 (establishing a European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change ‘as a point of reference for the Union on scientific knowledge relating to climate change by virtue of its independence and scientific and technical expertise’), 4(2)-(7); Torney and O’Gorman (n 39) 175.
[42] See e.g. ESR art 4(2), 5-7, 8(1), 9(1), 11; Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 205-206, 210.
[43] See also Doelle (n 15) 378 (advocating an ex-ante assessment of NDCs to enhance ambition); Friedrich (n 15) 334 (arguing in favour of a similar dialogue as part of the global stocktake); Lahn (n 28) 41 (proposing to use science-based assessments to ‘enable (…) an informed conversation’); Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 181-182 (demanding discussions during the global stocktake based on an independent equity assessment). A first indication of a quantified collective interim goal can be found in Glasgow Climate Pact (n 3) [22] (recognising ‘that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires (…) reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and to net zero around mid-century’).
[44] See also United Kingdom Climate Change Act 2008 s 34 (entrusting an independent committee with the task of advising the government on carbon budgets for particular time periods); Lahn (n 28) 32, 34-37, 39; Mayer (n 25) 20-21; Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 181. A recently published draft of a new IPCC report already contains some examples of scientific recommendations on what (collective) action needs to be taken to meet the PA’s temperature goal; see e.g. R Allan et al, ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in V Masson-Delmotte et al (eds), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2021) 36, 40.
[45] See also PA preambular recital 11 (briefly mentioning intergenerational equity); BVerfG Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021 1 BvR 2656/18 (German Constitutional Court) [122], [146], [183], [220]-[229] (which – in a landmark judgment – derives an intertemporal perspective on climate action that necessitates more ambitious immediate action from article 20a of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz), stressing at the same time that currently there still are significant uncertainties in calculating a national emission budget based on the PA’s temperature goal, inter alia, due to the absence of agreed-upon criteria); Voigt and Ferreira (n 11) 288; Bodansky, Brunnée and Rajamani (n 25) 27; Mayer (n 25) 29-31; Lahn (n 28) 32, 35-36, 39-40; Peel (n 26) 1015.
[46] Doelle (n 15) 387. See also Governance Regulation art 9(2) and (3) (on a similar review of draft NECPs at EU level); Rouxel (n 8) 34-35; Lahn (n 28) 36-37, 39.
[47] See also ECL art 7(3)(b) (which obliges EU member states that choose to deviate from Commission recommendations on improving the consistency of individual ambition to provide their reasons for doing so); Governance Regulation art 34(2)(b); Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 208; J Brunnée, ‘Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law and International Environmental Law’ in U Beyerlin, P Stoll and R Wolfrum (eds), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 8 (who frames such a ‘justificatory discourse’ as a typical element of managerialist approaches).
[48] See also Winkler et al (n 16) 100 (arguing that an equity approach that combines ‘bottom-up assessment and top-down allocation’ would fit in well with the PA’s hybrid architecture); Doelle (n 15) 378, 387; Friedrich (n 15) 337; Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 181.
[49] See also Zahar, ‘Collective Obligation’ (n 4) 186-188; Friedrich (n 15) 337.
[50] See also Rouxel (n 8) 26 (emphasising the interlinkage between flexibility and the perceived equity of rules).
[51] The safety reserve pursuant to ESR art 11 offers an example of a so-designed flexibility at European level; Peeters and Athanasiadou (n 30) 206; European Commission, ‘Effort sharing 2021-2030: targets and flexibilities’ (Climate Action) <https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/regulation_en> accessed 1 September 2021.
[52] See also C Voigt, ‘The Compliance and Implementation Mechanism of the Paris Agreement’ (2016) 25 RECIEL 161, 167; C Holz, S Kartha and T Athanasiou, ‘Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5°C-compliant global mitigation effort’ (2018) 18 International Environmental Agreements 117, 118, 131; Climate Action Tracker, ‘Comparability of effort’ (Climate Action Tracker) <https://climateactiontracker.org/methodology/comparability-of-effort/> accessed 11 June 2021.
[53] Unless expressly indicated otherwise, this blog post therefore refers to the state of the law as of early September 2021.

Spotlight: Collaboration is key to boost social mobility

Faculty of Business and Law | 22 February 20229 May 2022

Guest blog by Karl Brown FRSA, UWE Bristol Law alum and Faculty Advisory Board member.

I am a Commercial Property Partner in the Bristol office of national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP. I am proud to not only be Bristol born and bred but also very proud of my Jamaican heritage. My parents came to the UK in the early 1960s from Jamaica and my dad was a plasterer and my mum was a nurse. The example of my parents gave me a good work ethic but also a desire to make positive change by boosting social mobility and diversity in our professions. I found it very difficult to get a training contract (and ended up making over 100 applications) but through a combination of determination and also mentoring I eventually managed to get a training contract.

My personal experiences mean giving back to young people from less privileged backgrounds is important to me and is why I became a social mobility ambassador for the Law Society in 2016. In my role as a social mobility ambassador, I have given various careers presentations both in-person (pre-pandemic) and also online to show young people from underrepresented backgrounds that they can with the right attitude and work ethic have a career in law.

I firmly believe that it is only through collaboration between the business world and education institutions that we have any chance of reaching out to young people from a range of different backgrounds and inspiring them to try and achieve their desired careers. This is why I was very proud in 2015 to be a founder member of the Bristol Learning City Partnership Board working alongside headteachers from schools in Bristol to try to formulate policies that work both for schools and also local business. And it is also why in my current role on UWE Bristol’s Faculty of Business and Law Advisory Board I always try and give the perspective of the business world when discussing ideas/proposed policies for the faculty. These roles have also I think made me a better solicitor and business leader as they have increased not only my range of soft skills but my understanding of how the world of business can best attract and develop talent.

Collaboration between businesses within a sector is also key if positive change is to be brought to that sector. I founded the Bristol Property Inclusion Charter (“the Charter”) in 2019 to boost diversity and inclusion in the Bristol property sector. Through research and also through my own networking as a property solicitor, I could see that the Bristol property sector was not as diverse as it could be given the wider diversity in the Bristol population. Another driver in my desire to bring positive change to the property industry was having seen my dad who like many other west Indian immigrants and immigrants from other countries in the past found a skilled trade in the property industry which enabled my dad and others to not only make a positive contribution to the UK economy but also to give a good start in life to their children.

The Charter has seven objectives which in summary include trying to open up opportunities in the Bristol property sector and collaboration to bring transformative change. The running of the Charter is through the Bristol Property Inclusion Commission which I founded in early 2020 and I sit on the commission as Chair alongside representatives from other parts of the property industry. In 2016 the Charter had about fifteen signatory companies/organisations but today we have sixty-six which include YTL, Live West, Bristol City Council, Avison Young, Redrow, Galliard Homes, Grainger plc and Elim Housing.

I would just conclude by making a confession. If you speak to my wife she will tell you that I am an avid follower of the news and in particular love watching CNN. It was watching CNN last year that I saw someone mention an old African proverb and as soon as I heard it I thought I would use it in speeches and articles. The proverb is “If you want to go fast go alone. If you want to go far go together.” If we work together then I firmly believe we can bring positive change to professions such as law and also to sectors such as property.

The UN Climate Change Conference 2021 in Glasgow – Success or Failure?

Faculty of Business and Law | 15 February 202215 February 2022

Guest blog by Christina Schroeder, member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group

The UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) took place from 31 October to 12 November 2021, with more than 120 world leaders and over 40,000 registered participants attending.[1] The target of the conference was to accelerate actions to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement[2] and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.[3]

During COP26, countries reaffirmed the Paris Agreement goal limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and reaching net-zero around mid-century.[4] This year’s extreme natural events also gave the conference more significance, with impacts of global warming becoming more obvious with floods, heat-waves and fires.[5] Before COP26, many countries updated their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for more climate protection.[6] The European Union, for example, entered these negotiations with several objectives such as cutting emissions, providing climate finance to developing and vulnerable countries with targeting 100 billion dollars per year, but also getting an agreement on the Paris rulebook for fixing transparency and reporting requirements.[7]

Against this background, the decisions taken at COP26 were accordingly viewed critically.

Many hoped for transformation to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement rather than the improvement discussed within COP26.[8] The Climate Conference in Glasgow should not be seen as a failure, but also not as a big success comparable to Paris.[9] Still, some important decisions in the fight against climate change were made. An important political, as well as climate policy decision, was the announcement of a collaboration between China and the US to reduce their emissions.[10] Another important decision was the agreement between more than 100 countries to reduce their methane emissions by 30% until 2030, as well as another agreement concerning the regeneration of forests made by over 100 countries having a total of 90% of the world’s forests together.[11] The global coal to clean energy transition also found big support from more than 40 countries during the negotiations.[12]

Progress can be determined, especially regarding the long-term view with credible delivery plans. Net-Zero target is an important part of this plan. At the last COP in Madrid in 2019, only 16% of the global GDP was covered by Net-Zero target, whilst now around 90% of global emissions are covered by this Net-Zero target with limiting climate warming to 2 degrees within potential reach.[13] Especially the Net-Zero target was supported in Glasgow for long-term efforts.[14] These decisions may be important, but they fell short of the expectations of many, also because many criticisms remained unresolved within COP26.

The final text of the COP26 includes further actions to curb emissions, more frequent updates on progress, and the idea of funding for low- and middle-income countries.[15] Nevertheless, there is a lack of stronger commitments to reduce emissions. The countries only agreed to phase down and not phase out coal[16], which seems disappointing in regard to the Paris Agreement’s goals.

Another point of criticism is the failure to agree on loss and damage finance. This includes supporting low- and middle-income countries with their pathway to decarbonisation, resilience, energy access, and economic growth at the same time.[17] The issue of climate finance is especially crucial for low-income countries being directly exposed to climate change and damages resulting from emissions they did not create.[18] Climate finance is important for helping these countries moving towards clean energy and away from fossil fuels as the cheapest way to keep energy costs down.[19] This means, in particular, that the vulnerable countries have to wait until COP27 where the issue of loss and damage finance should be progressed.[20]

There were less efforts on the short-term view for cutting emissions, although actions taken within the next 10 years are crucial, and an additional focus on near-term emission reduction would have been important too.[21] The NDCs are core to the COP framework and the immediate focus has also to be placed on countries strengthening their 2030 targets as the next few years would be the decisive period to reach the Paris Agreement’s targets.[22]

Apart from the political decision-making level, the climate summit was also very present in the media. Indeed, public awareness is necessary to achieve climate protection; therefore, results achieved during the climate change summit and reactions to it worldwide are important. China as one of the big polluting countries in the world seemed to have ignored the sense of urgency.[23] In the US, President Biden is now trying to speed up climate change related measures by creating awareness amongst the citizens.[24] Russia still only aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, and as a fossil fuel superpower Russia is not willing to cut methane emissions up to 30% by 2030.[25] India as a developing country is taking initiatives to support the reduction in emissions, and also emphasising the urgency of climate change by announcing the goal of reaching Net-Zero by 2070.[26] Brazil’s largest problem contributing to climate change remains the deforestation of its immense rainforest; but the current political regime is not willing to take actions as President Jair Bolsonaro did not even show up to the climate summit.[27]

Following COP26, in addition to the decisions taken, it can be noted that there is still a long way to go to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries are facing different problems starting off with political unwillingness for climate protection, not creating enough awareness amongst their citizens and also local circumstances such as poverty hindering the efforts to curb climate change . Nevertheless, if all the short-term and long-term commitments are implemented, it may still be possible to reach the targets set in Paris Agreement.[28]

[1] United Nations Climate Action, ‘COP26: Together for our planet’ <https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26 > accessed 5 January 2022.

[2] Paris Agreement, 22 April 2016, in force 4 November 2016, C.N.92.2016. Treaties-XXVII.7.d (2015 Paris Agreement).

[3] General Assembly, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration), Rio de Janeiro 3-14 June 1992, A/CONF.151/26.

[4] United Nations Climate Action (n 1).

[5] Alejandra Borunda in National Geographic, ‘COP26 nears conclusion with mixed signals and frustration’ 12 November 2021 < https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/cop26-conclusion-mixed-signals-and-frustration> accessed 4 January 2022.

[6] Ibid.

[7] European Commission Press Release 13 November 2021 ‘COP26: EU helps deliver outcome to keep the Paris Agreement targets alive’ < https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6021> accessed 4 January 2022.

[8] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full?’ 17 November 2021 <https://institute.global/policy/cop26-review-glass-half-full> accessed 5 January 2022.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Acciona ‘Conclusions From COP26: The Challenge of Doing Away With Coal’ <https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/cop26-conclusions/?_adin=02021864894> accessed 4 January 2022.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ehsan Masood, Jeff Tollefson ‘COP26 hasn’t solved the problem: scientists react to UN climate deal’ 15 November 2021 < https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03431-4> accessed 4 January 2022.

[16] Acciona ‘Conclusions From COP26: The Challenge of Doing Away With Coal’ (n 10).

[17] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[18] Ehsan Masood, Jeff Tollefson ‘COP26 hasn’t solved the problem: scientists react to UN climate deal’ (n 15).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Tim Lord, Phil McNally ‘COP26 Review: Glass Half Full? (n 8).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] BBC ‘COP 26: How the world is reacting to the climate summit’ 06 November 2021 <https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59036722> accessed 5 January 2022.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Alejandra Borunda in National Geographic, ‘COP26 nears conclusion with mixed signals and frustration’ (n 5).

Alumni spotlight: Choo Dee Wei

Faculty of Business and Law | 20 December 202120 December 2021

Guest blog by LLB alumni, Choo Dee Wei.

I commenced the LLB (Hons) degree with HELP in 2001. It was a twinning-programme with UWE Bristol. My final year i.e. my 3rd year was in UWE itself. This was in 2003. Thereafter I undertook the Bar Vocational Course and was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 2005. I was admitted as an advocate & solicitor of the High Court in Malaya in 2007.

I wouldn’t trade my learning experience for anything in the world. UWE has provided lessons both in real life and in a classroom setting.

Without it, it is doubtful that I would be where I am today.

These lessons have brought me to this moment in time. Over a decade in practice and now managing and running my own firm comprising associates, pupils, staff, paralegals and interns. That aside, it remains important and vital to continue to develop and nurture young students to become great practitioners. Hence being involved in numerous events and sessions of such nature.

Choo Dee Wei
Present: Principal of Messrs. Choo Dee Wei
Graduated: LLB(Hons) 2003, UWE BVC 2005

Climate Change Litigation – A Vehicle for Changing Corporation and State Behaviour?

Faculty of Business and Law | 8 September 20218 September 2021

By Johanna Reichel, Second Year, LL.B. Programme.

With only nine years left until climate change becomes irreversible,[1] stopping or slowing it down becomes increasingly crucial every day. One judicial instrument among others to combat climate change is climate change litigation which is gradually perceived to change climate-related policy outcomes and corporate behaviour.

The most prominent case when talking about climate change litigation is Urgenda.[2]In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favour of 900 citizens assisted by the Urgenda Foundation and ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gas emission (GHG) by at least 25% by the end of 2020.[3] This “show horse” of climate change litigation is an almost perfect example of invoking human rights to force States to act ‘greener’.

Climate change litigation cases, especially ones relying on human rights, are increasing.[4] When the defendant is the respective government, the claimants can rely on human rights. Especially the right to life[5] and the right to effective remedies[6] have been used more often strategically and successfully by NGO’s and individuals.

Urgenda paved the way for other individuals, such as Ashgar Leghari, a farmer in Pakistan, to hold their governments accountable via litigation. Mr Leghari challenged the Pakistani government for its failure to carry out core provisions of the National Climate Change Policy of 2012. He succeeded and the government was ordered to implement a climate adaption plan.[7]

In 2018, Colombia’s Supreme Court ordered the authorities to implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon,[8] another major cause of climate change. As the ‘lung of the world’, the Amazon Forest stores large amounts of carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and thereby increasing the world’s temperature.[9]

As demonstrated, climate change litigation is a tool to influence climate change law and policy. Nevertheless, as corporations are responsible for over 71% of global emissions,[10] holding them accountable is essential to stop climate change. However, as the provisions in the Human Right Charters are only addressed to public bodies, corporations cannot be held liable under them.[11] After failed attempts in the early 2000s,[12] the second wave of litigation rose with cases such as Huaraz Case[13] where Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, is suing the German multinational energy company RWE in Germany to hold them accountable for their impact on climate change. He is basing his claim on the German Code of Civil procedure, yet the outcome must be awaited as SARS COVID-19 delayed the process.[14]

The precedent for climate change litigation against corporations was recently set in Milieudefensie v Shell.[15] In May 2021, Shell was ordered to cut their GHG by 2030 by 45%.[16] Relying on the Urgenda precedent and the fact that Shell’s GHG was twice as high as the Netherland’s, the court permitted the claim under the European Convention on Human Rights.[17]

Despite the fact that courts do not always rule in favour of the environment, corporations can be influenced to act ‘greener’ due to media coverage. ExxonMobile, for example, misled the public about climate change’s potential business risks to rationalize their behaviour by funding climate change denial front groups and spreading disinformation about climate science.[18] Despite winning the case, the subsequent public and financial scrutiny damaged their reputation, and their credit rating was downgraded.[19] In conclusion, climate change litigation is accurately seen as a tool to influence climate change policies and corporate behaviour. However, cases such as Urgenda and Milieudefensie, while demonstrating an ideal outcome, are rare and must be built upon. Milieudefensie, in particular, needs to be further observed as Shell will undoubtedly appeal the decision. Nevertheless, even unsuccessful cases can drive climate change action long term as public awareness is raised through media attention and a broad public discussion is forced.

[1] General Assembly, Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting (28 March 2019) < https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm> accessed 18 May 2021

[2] Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, English translation ECLI:NL:2019:2007

[3]’Climate Case – Urgenda’ (Urgenda, 2019) <https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/> accessed 18 May 2021; Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, English translation ECLI:NL:2019:2007

[4] Elisa de Wit, Sonali Seneviratne and Huw Calford, ‘Climate Change Litigation Update’ (Nortonrosefulbright.com, 2020) <https://nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/7d58ae66/climate-change-litigation-update> accessed 24 May 2021

[5] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1848, art. 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art. 6

[6] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1848, art. 8; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art. 2(3)

[7] Asghar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan (2015) W.P. No 25501/201

[8] Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01, para 3.

[9] Ross W. Gorte and Pervaze A. Sheikh ‘Deforestation and Climate Change’ (Congressional Research Service, 2010) < http://forestindustries.eu/sites/default/files/userfiles/1file/R41144.pdf> accessed 2 July 2021

[10] Tess Riley, ‘Just 100 Companies Responsible For 71% Of Global Emissions, Study Says’ (the Guardian, 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change> accessed 18 May 2021

[11] European Commission, ‘How to report a breach of your rights’ https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/how-report-breach-your-rights_en accessed 26 May 2021

[12] Michal Nachmany and Joana Setzer, ‘Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2018 snapshot’ (2018) Graham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment < https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Global-trends-in-climate-change-legislation-and-litigation-2018-snapshot-3.pdf> accessed 24 May 2021

[13] Agence France-Presse, ‘Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant for contributing to climate change’ The Guardian (14 November 2017) < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/peruvian-farmer-sues-german-energy-giant-rwe-climate-change> accessed 24 May 2021

[14] Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG Case No. 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court

[15] The Hague District Court, 26 May 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337, English translation ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339

[16] Roger Harrabin ‘Shell: Netherlands court orders oil giant to cut emissions’ BBC News (26 May 2021) < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57257982> accessed 26 May 2021

[17] Milieudefensie v Shell [2019] District Court of The Hague < http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2019/20190405_8918_summons.pdf> accessed 26 May 2021

[18] Suzanne Goldenberg ‘ExxonMobil under investigation over claims it lied about climate change risks’ The Guardian (New York, 5.11.2015) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/exxonmobil-investigation-climate-change-peabody> accessed 8 July 2021

[19] Megan Darby, ‘Shareholder Pressure Mounts On Downgraded Exxonmobil’ (the Guardian, 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/28/shareholders-pressure-mounts-on-downgraded-exxonmobil-climate-change> accessed 25 May 2021

Outstanding Student Representative of the Year

Faculty of Business and Law | 16 August 20212 August 2021

Congratulations to LLB (Hons) Law student, Danielle Newton, for receiving the title of ‘Outstanding Rep of the Year’ for the Business and Law faculty. We caught up with Danielle about her journey as part of our Student Spotlight 2021.

Why did you want to become a student rep?

“My initial interest came after my first year at the university. Once my confidence grew, I wanted to be a voice for those who went unnoticed, the students who find it difficult to say how they feel and bring to light any issues they are having. I have been that type of student for years and I know exactly how it feels. I knew during a pandemic that the student representative programme could be the perfect asset for getting to know peers and staff alike. I felt the need to still maintain that contact irrespective of all the restrictions we were facing in the world. My hope was to make certain that my faculty’s year felt like a community!

Overall, Student representatives are of significant importance in encompassing the idea of acting on behalf of one body to promote change and success for all.”

What have you gained as a student rep?

“I have developed exceptional communication skills through volunteering as a student representative. The role itself relies on gaining feedback from peers to better establish a reliable working environment. Thus, I actively communicate with staff members and students to be a voice of reason and representation. All of this has been a great topic for conversation in recent interviews.

The most thoroughly rewarding part of the role was being able to make change for my cohort. Whether that be a deadline change, timetable change, teaching addition etc. Any small amount of change would bring with it great satisfaction. Alongside this, the programme gave me the opportunity to speak to various people. I have made many friends despite the virtual restrictions consequently adding to my university experience as a whole.”

What were the challenges you faced over the past year?

“It comes as no surprise that it has been an unprecedented year and with that came many challenges both in and out of university. I found adapting to virtual life hard. Communicating with lots of people in my role but never seeing faces was very strange! I recently came onto campus and have spotted a few of my lecturers who probably wouldn’t know who I am.

The main challenges lied with the shift in academic year dates. This change in schedule was difficult for students to adapt too – myself included. However, it has all been a learning curve and all the students and staff have worked exceptionally hard to try and get the most out of the academic year.”

What have you learnt?

“Foremost what I have learnt from my university experience is the power afforded to those who try hard and persevere to succeed. It may seem a silly concept but, what breaks away from those students who are academically gifted and those who try hard is that university doesn’t discriminate. One of my favourite quotes that I would think about when I competed in Athletics was “all men are created equal, some work harder in pre-season.” This concept is similar for university and you will be recognised for your efforts.

I felt like a slow burner here. I wasn’t academically gifted and I was so shy when walking onto campus for the first time. I had convinced myself I would drop out in the first 5 minutes. But I kept going and once I was ready, I was able to make the most out of my university experience. My advice would be, seize every opportunity given to you, don’t take life too seriously, enjoy the small things and most of all remember – fast success builds your ego but, slow success builds your character.”

Students launch legal directory to help aspiring lawyers

Faculty of Business and Law | 16 August 202111 August 2021

Lawtask is an online legal directory designed to help future lawyers bridge the gap between leaving university and securing their first positions in their legal careers. Lawtask allows students to gain professional skills and experience, in their pursuit of a legal career. This is achieved through the consolidation of relevant and practical opportunities and resources.

Set up in 2020, Lawtask was founded by Alessia Cucciniello, recent UWE Bristol Law graduate, and Kieran Woodhouse, LPC LLM student at UWE Bristol. Both have ambitions of becoming solicitors and have also been involved with the UWE Bristol Law Society, with Kieran being elected Vice-President.

Formed during the Covid-19 pandemic, Lawtask was a response to the competitive legal sector that students are faced with when leaving University. Alessia and Kieran launched Lawtask to enable law students to stand out through providing knowledge sharing and useful tools to give students a great place to start in the pursuit of their legal careers.

“Our aim was to bridge the gap between graduating university and securing your first legal job. There are plenty of resources out there to choose from, and our aim was to collect them in an easily accessible platform that could help students gain essential skills to stand out.”
Alessia

They explored the concept of virtual learning and discovered the huge variety of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) that applied to legal students. These courses demonstrate transferable skills and a drive to seek personal improvement that employers are truly looking for.

“One thing we realised when searching for these and other relevant experiences, was that there is no single place for law students to discover the opportunities open to them. This then sparked the concept for Lawtask.”
Kieran

The platform is still in its early stages, however, the pair have seen great success so far. The feedback they have received from both students and staff at UWE has been hugely positive and led to consistent audience growth and user interaction.

“Our hope for the future is to be able to grow and provide more opportunities for students. We would like to expand our platform and start offering real work experience that graduates can use on their job applications, in order to truly help them succeed. We are still working on this, but we hope that we will be able to do this very soon.”
Alessia

“My ultimate hope for Lawtask is that it becomes the norm for law students to consider looking outside the traditional scope of experience and learning and that Lawtask can be a place that can guide people to something beneficial for them.”
Kieran

We asked them both for their advice to current students and here’s what they said:

“My advice to current students is to make good use of all the resources and opportunities offered by UWE and engage with the societies. Not only this will enhance your student experience, but it might also give you essential skills that you will carry with you and shape your future career.”
Alessia

“In my personal experience, so many people emphasise their degree being the absolute evidence of their ability to do anything and so often people forget the importance of personal development. With that in mind, my advice would be to take the opportunities that you have available to you either within your subject or elsewhere because now is the time to explore them. Who knows, you may find a whole new career aspiration.”
Kieran

You can visit Lawtask here.

My student representative journey at Bristol Law School

Faculty of Business and Law | 16 August 20212 August 2021

Blog by Sarah Barnes, Bristol Law School LLB (Hons) recent graduate, as part of the FBL Student Spotlight 2021.

Why I became a representative

I had always wanted to be a representative during my time at UWE Bristol but I felt a bit nervous to do so. However, when I saw the opportunity to become a Law Lead Department Representative I knew I had to apply. I enjoy helping people and I wanted to enable student voices to be heard throughout their time at UWE.

What I gained and learnt

I have learnt so much at UWE, more than I ever would have if I went anywhere else. Firstly, I gained a lot of confidence. I was always a little nervous to speak out for example in lectures, but being in this role I have had to overcome this as I have had to network lots. Luckily I have met lots of friendly and lovely people and such a variety of staff and students across the University.

I also gained team working skills by working with other Lead Department Representatives and staff, and was able to communicate news to them and resolve issues that arose.

On my course, I have learnt so much such as negotiation and mediation. I have also helped to advise real clients through the UWE Bristol Law Clinic. The experiences I have gained have been invaluable.

The challenges I faced

I have faced the challenge of studying from home over the past year. It was a big change from being in the lecture theatres and workshop rooms to being in your bedroom! I overcame this change by ensuring I organised my time, created a suitable study space and also tried to get more involved than I ever did before to ensure that being online did not negatively affect my studies.

The importance of Student Representatives

It is really important to represent students so that they feel that they are being listened to. Furthermore, by having this role, we are the middleman in speaking to lecturers about what students believe is working and what they feel may not be working as well. This role was highly important whilst having blended learning this year as new ways of learning had different levels of effectiveness.

As a Representative, I was able to communicate feedback from students to the staff and helped adapt the module to suit the students’ needs.

My advice

If you are considering becoming a representative, do it! Apply now! Fear can always try to eat you up, but you never know that you may get the role you really want. You have to be determined and resilient to achieve great things. Being a representative has really helped my leadership and team working skills in order to try my best and help the law students at UWE.

The staff here at UWE are always willing to do their best to help you. As a representative, I had meetings weekly with staff and that was truly invaluable. We were able to communicate what was happening on both sides and we would be able to resolve issues much quicker by working together.