Exercising Planetary Jurisdiction: On the Legality and Legitimacy of Unilaterally Mitigating Planetary Ecological Footprints

Abstract International environmental law is increasingly depicted as being insufficient to prevent intertwined ‘planetary crises’ – notably, climate change and the advent of a sixth mass extinction of species. Perceived shortcomings in multilateral environmental treaties and their implementation have prompted policy-makers, particularly within the European Union, to rely more heavily on unilateral regulatory instruments aimed at addressing planetary crises beyond national borders. Examples include the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, legal corporate sustainability due diligence instruments and import restrictions on products linked to deforestation. The exercise of jurisdiction to tackle planetary crises – referred to here as planetary jurisdiction – raises urgent concerns regarding the legality and legitimacy of unilateral regulation with extraterritorial reach. For some, such unilateral regulation is much needed and responds to a moral responsibility or even legal obligation; for others, exercising planetary jurisdiction is tantamount to ‘regulatory imperialism’. In this complex normative landscape, this article provides a nuanced perspective. Based on scientific insights, it highlights that the effects of planetary crises on the population of regulating states strengthen arguments for the permissibility of exercising planetary jurisdiction under customary international law and even support a human rights obligation for states to address their planetary footprint. Such an obligation, however, can be exercised in various ways, many of which would better align with considerations of equity and justice along North-South lines than existing forms of exercising planetary jurisdiction. Drawing from international environmental law, international trade law and human rights law, this article analyses the extent to which regulators face legal requirements to better address participatory and distributional concerns discussed under the heading of planetary justice.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of International Law
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chae071
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Space exploration and regulation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.33
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exercising Planetary Jurisdiction: On the Legality and Legitimacy of Unilaterally Mitigating Planetary Ecological Footprints

Andreas Buser
1 citations
European Journal of International Law
Space exploration and regulation
0.33
article

Exercising Planetary Jurisdiction: On the Legality and Legitimacy of Unilaterally Mitigating Planetary Ecological Footprints

Andreas Buser
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract International environmental law is increasingly depicted as being insufficient to prevent intertwined ‘planetary crises’ – notably, climate change and the advent of a sixth mass extinction of species. Perceived shortcomings in multilateral environmental treaties and their implementation have prompted policy-makers, particularly within the European Union, to rely more heavily on unilateral regulatory instruments aimed at addressing planetary crises beyond national borders. Examples include the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, legal corporate sustainability due diligence instruments and import restrictions on products linked to deforestation. The exercise of jurisdiction to tackle planetary crises – referred to here as planetary jurisdiction – raises urgent concerns regarding the legality and legitimacy of unilateral regulation with extraterritorial reach. For some, such unilateral regulation is much needed and responds to a moral responsibility or even legal obligation; for others, exercising planetary jurisdiction is tantamount to ‘regulatory imperialism’. In this complex normative landscape, this article provides a nuanced perspective. Based on scientific insights, it highlights that the effects of planetary crises on the population of regulating states strengthen arguments for the permissibility of exercising planetary jurisdiction under customary international law and even support a human rights obligation for states to address their planetary footprint. Such an obligation, however, can be exercised in various ways, many of which would better align with considerations of equity and justice along North-South lines than existing forms of exercising planetary jurisdiction. Drawing from international environmental law, international trade law and human rights law, this article analyses the extent to which regulators face legal requirements to better address participatory and distributional concerns discussed under the heading of planetary justice.

European Journal of International LawVol. 35(4)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Space exploration and regulation
0.33
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Exercising Planetary Jurisdiction: On the Legality and Legitimacy of Unilaterally Mitigating Planetary Ecological Footprints — Andreas Buser · European Journal of International Law (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS