Abstract for Scopus Indexing: This think-piece explores the growing movement and legal framework of rights of nature as it might be applied in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction ( ABNJ ). We first examine what rights of nature is, and how it has been applied in practice. We then take a step further to analyze how rights of nature, or ocean rights, may positively influence marine conservation in the context of ABNJ through three short case studies exploring (1) marine protected areas, (2) marine migratory species, and (3) deep-seabed mining. By highlighting the potential of such a framework to mitigate the risks to marine biodiversity in ABNJ , this think-piece paves the way for a global re-evaluation of how the ocean is governed, urging a shift towards more ecologically sustainable human activity.

The Paris Agreement was and remains the most advanced effort by states to tackle the climate crisis. Yet, as the crisis worsens year after year, it is increasingly clear that neither the original Agreement nor subsequent developments provide the answers that are needed. This can be ascribed to a variety of factors. The first is the lack of ambition of the Paris Agreement, itself linked to the fact that development, and economic growth in particular, are still seen as part of the answer despite being at the root of the problem. The second is the limited equity framing, which fails to recognize inequality as one of the greatest issues of the climate crisis, which needs to be tackled urgently through inter-state and intra-state redistribution, and through accountability. This chapter argues that the fight against the climate crisis will only start to be effective when it is built around environmental and social criteria, aiming to achieve environmental justice focused on nature and people's needs and rights, rather than on energy and the economy that has marked climate policy for decades.

A treaty to regulate the global antimicrobial commons can be appropriately framed around the model provided by multilateral environmental agreements. At the same time, it is not clear that a comprehensive treaty is the only possible entry point and other options, such as an agreement on technology transfer or funding may be apt starting points. Any legal instrument adopted to regulate the global antimicrobial commons needs to reflect the global South-North dichotomy and integrate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Further, it would need to go beyond environmental instruments that have been structured around the sovereign interests of negotiating states even when dealing with issues of global concern, such as climate change. The proposed legal instrument would also need to be based not just on the precautionary principle as a marker of the necessity to address the negative environmental and health impacts, but also be based on the interests of patients and integrate concerns raised in terms of the human right to health.

The development model emphasizing economic growth has been at the root of today's environmental crises. Its reshaping as 'sustainable' development was supposed to address its shortcomings while giving particular attention to the needs of the poor. This has largely failed and in the process inequalities have increased significantly. Inequalities between people need to be addressed through eco-human rights that are collective and multi-level to better reflect today's environmental challenges. These rights build on the idea of solidarity rights, are framed around the principle of subsidiarity and the need for accountability beyond a single State. Inter-State inequality has been addressed in part through differential treatment in environmental law. It needs to be reconfirmed to address ongoing inequalities and increased resistance to such measures; needs to be more flexible to reflect the specific situation of smaller groups of countries; and needs to integrate elements of intra-State inequality.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10, Reduced Inequalities, addresses one of the fundamental building blocks for the realization of all SDGs in a very unequal world. It emphasizes both interstate and intrastate inequality and, in so doing, goes much beyond what the 2000 Millennium Development Goals offered. SDG 10 is a central goal because inequality conditions the realization of many other SDGs, some of which also directly address inequality. In the context of international law, SDG 10 reflects in part existing equity measures, such as preferential and differential treatment. It may be seen as strengthening the equity context in economic law but does not go beyond what sustainable development law already provides. Its main contribution is to link different types of inequalities and provide a framework for linking sustainable development law, economic law, and human rights.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a global public health challenge. It has been examined through various angles, but the link between AMR and access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) or lack thereof has received little attention. Both AMR and WASH relate directly to the realization of the rights to health, water, and sanitation. In addition, both can affect the enjoyment of the right to environment. AMR is particularly complex from a rights perspective. Access to medicines contributes significantly to the realization of the right to health. At the same time, AMR affects the poorer sections of society who have disproportionately less access to medicines and to WASH. Rights, equality and justice should thus be at the centre of the development and implementation of law and policy concerning AMR and WASH. As we celebrate 50 years of international environmental law, it is crucial to ask some hard questions concerning the inter-sectional and cross-sectoral dimensions of AMR and WASH from the point of view of rights, equality, and justice. Linking the two would bring various co-benefits that the prevailing silo mentality has prevented.

This chapter examines water law in a global South-global North context. It looks at the recent evolution of water law, divided between a push for recognising water as an economic good that can be traded like any other commodity and a counter push for enshrining the commons nature of water through the public trust doctrine and the recognition of the human right to water. It then considers necessary steps for the future of water law, including the recognition of water as a common heritage and the need to reconceive the right to water as a right to free water.

8 Common but differentiated responsibilities Philippe Cullet Introduction Equity has been one of the central concerns in international environmental law over the past couple of decades. Debates have largely focused on the North–South dimension of ...

The 2022 Declaration must integrate concerns related to inequality between people and between states. Enduring inequalities between states call for strengthening differential treatment and in consonance with present-day realities. Fast increasing inequalities between people call for making this a core subject of interest of international environmental law. Rights must be at the center of this new focus and include not just the long-debated human right to the environment but also nature rights.

International law seeks to ensure water security and to prevent or resolve conflicts leading to water insecurity. This relationship is based on a hybrid framework comprising binding and nonbinding instruments. The multi-scalar dimensions of water (in)security are recognized, but further engagement is required. The link between international law and water (in)security is considered primarily through the lens of international water law, which focuses on transboundary (surface) watercourses. Groundwater—the other main source of water and determinant of water (in)security—receives little attention. Further, the traditional state-centric approach, with its emphasis on sovereignty and cooperation, remains the dominant paradigm despite some attempts to redefine it. Several other branches of international law present opportunities for expanding international law's engagement with the water security discourse. Finally, the climate change challenge requires a reconsideration of international law's approach to water (in)security while considering the global dimensions of water.