Explore publications authored by the Work Package 6 team.

Civil Society Engagement and Climate Policy-Making: First Recommendations from HRJust Fieldwork Activities

HRJust Policy Paper Series

Introduction of the article : Climate change is not just an environmental crisis – it is also a social and human rights crisis. As Europe works toward ambitious climate goals, there is growing recognition that who is involved in shaping climate policy, and how they are involved, determines the success and fairness of climate action. The EU’s climate transition under the European Green Deal must address questions of justice: Are policies protecting the most vulnerable? Are citizens meaningfully engaged? Are we upholding human rights and gender equality in our climate response? This policy paper addresses these questions by synthesizing findings from the HRJust research project, with particular regard to its work on climate litigation and civil society engagement through a human rights and intersectional lens.

Why focus on civil society and human rights? Climate policies can only achieve broad, lasting support if they reflect society’s voices. Civil society organizations, from environmental NGOs to youth and indigenous groups, have led the way in pushing for stronger climate action and highlighting injustices. They are also key players in climate litigation, using courts to enforce climate commitments when political processes fall short. At the same time, climate change exacerbates existing inequalities – for example, extreme weather hits disadvantaged communities hardest, and adaptation resources often fail to reach those most in need. A climate policy that is “green” but ignores social equity could deepen these divides. Therefore, engaging civil society continuously and using human rights as a guiding framework are critical strategies to improve climate governance.

The HRJust project has introduced and developed the concept of Systematic Ongoing Direct Civil Society Engagement (ODCSE) as a way to strengthen democracy and accountability in policy-making. This policy paper explores how ODCSE can inform EU climate governance.

Safeguarding Climate Policy in Third Party Funded Investment Arbitration Through Legal Solidarity Mechanisms: The Potential Role of the Forthcoming UNCITRAL’s Advisory Centre

International Investment Law Journal 5, no. 2 (July 2025), pp. 156-170

This article explores how the forthcoming UNCITRAL Advisory Centre on International Investment Dispute Resolution (ACIIR) can assist states, particularly developing countries, in defending climate policies against investor claims backed by third-party funding (TPF) in investment arbitration. As climate-related regulatory measures increasingly trigger InvestorState Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims – increasingly financed by non-party funders – the risk of a ‘regulatory chill’ grows, disproportionately affecting climate-vulnerable states.

The article examines how TPF alters the dynamics of ISDS and creates systemic imbalances in arbitration proceedings that can ultimately jeopardise national climate policies. The article argues that the ACIIR, envisioned as a multilateral support hub, could function as a mechanism of legal solidarity by offering technical assistance, procedural guidance, legal representation, and training tailored to climate-focused disputes.

It also offers practical recommendations – such as equipping the Centre with environmental law expertise and fostering peer networks among similarly situated states – to enhance the Centre’s climate-defensive potential. Ultimately, the article proposes that, with adequate resources and mandates, the ACIIR can help support investor-state arbitration toward safeguarding public interests, including climate change ones

Confronting Human Rights Justifications in Climate Litigation: Developing a New Methodological Approach for the Systematic Ongoing Direct Civil Society Engagement

Juridical Tribune – Review of Comparative and International Law 15, no. 2 (June 2025), pp. 208-229

This article introduces and applies the innovative Systematic Ongoing Direct Civil Society Engagement (ODCSE) methodology developed under the Horizon Europe HRJust project to examine how states justify their actions through human rights discourse, with a focus on climate litigation. The ODCSE approach emphasizes participatory, iterative engagement with civil society to evaluate the legitimacy and accountability of human rights justifications (HRJs).

Drawing on qualitative and quantitative findings, the article shows how the ODCSE methodology has been used to map common state strategies in climate-related HRJs, comparing general and context-specific practices, and identifying the influence of geopolitical dynamics. A key contribution of this process is the integration of gender and intersectionality within the ODCSE framework. Recognising that climate impacts – and connected human rights narratives – are shaped by gender, race, and other intersecting factors, the methodology actively includes feminist and marginalised civil society voices in the co-production of knowledge. The article concludes with proposals for strengthening the role of the EU and global actors in promoting transparent, gender-responsive human rights justifications in climate policy.

Environmental and Human Rights Justifications in Investment Arbitration: Probing the Limits of ISDS for the Adjudication of Climate-Related Disputes

Journal of World Investment & Trade 26, published online ahead of print

This article examines the capacity of investment arbitration to analyze cases concerning complex issues of public international law, focusing on the challenges connected to climate-related cases. Through the analysis of arbitral awards involving environmental and human rights justifications, this article evaluates ways in which non-economic arguments may be effectively raised in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) and the extent to which arbitral tribunals may consider them.

A further consequence of this binary approach is that, in cases where multiple non-economic interests are involved, i.e. cases of ‘triangulation’, ISDS is ill-equipped to balance competing non-economic interests and therefore to handle the complexities of climate-related disputes.

Intersectionality as a legal concept? Applications and implications of the notion (within and) beyond non-discrimination law

BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, n. 1/2025, pp. 475-505

The present paper deals with the concept of intersectionality and its applications in the legal realm, with special regard to human rights law. Intersectional legal approaches have traditionally been linked to non-discrimination law, while the application in human rights law is still inconsistent but with significant potential.

The article therefore explores the theoretical and practical developments concerning these less trodden aspects of intersectionality in order to reveal how it can bring innovations to legal theory and practice beyond the connection to non-discrimination.

Verein Klimaseniorinnen and others v. Switzerland between human rights protection and human rights justification

Freedom, Security & Justice: European Legal Studies 1, pp. 210-236

The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen remarkably innovated its jurisprudence on environmental cases. It underlined the connection between states’ inaction, climate change and violations of human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In addition, the ruling has brought to the forefront the particular relationship between domestic and international norms in the Swiss context, all the more peculiar when popular votes have been involved. Notably, the decision sparked prompt negative reactions by political actors and institutions and oppositions to its implementation, with implications that are still to be assessed.

This article maintains that one of the reasons why such tensions have arisen is that an aspect of the Swiss stance in the dispute was overlooked, namely the employment of human rights justifications by the Swiss authorities. With the expression human rights justifications, it is here meant the use of human rights by states to legitimize their actions both at the domestic and international levels.

Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations in the Area of Climate Change: Why the European Union Should Take Them Seriously

European Papers, Vol. 9, 2024, No 2, pp. 479-512

While it is by now recognised that climate change is having and will increasingly have a devastating impact on human rights and that ill-conceived climate action can also have adverse repercussions, the legal implications of these dynamics are still debated. This is particularly the case for the apparent incompatibility between the global nature of climate change and the primarily territorial nature of States’ human rights obligations.

In this context, the potential human rights obligations of the European Union (EU) towards persons living in third countries when it acts – or refrains from acting – to counter climate change have been particularly neglected, notwithstanding the major role played by the EU in both contributing to and mitigating climate change. Accordingly, the Article aims to shed light on the existence and extent of EU extraterritorial human rights obligations in the area of climate change.

After exploring the wide array of EU climate measures and their extensive impacts on third countries and persons living therein, the Article offers an overview of the historical evolution and current state of extraterritorial human rights obligations in general and in the context of climate change specifically, paying special attention to recent judicial and quasi-judicial developments.

The Article then points to a number of peculiarities of the EU legal framework and EU climate policy to conclude that, notwithstanding potentially significant enforcement obstacles, the EU legal order could be readier than others to recognise extraterritorial human rights obligations when EU institutions act (or not) in the area of climate change.