Demand-side forest regulations increasingly govern production dynamics beyond consumer markets through legality licensing, due diligence, traceability mandates, and private certification. While existing research demonstrates that these instruments can disadvantage smallholders, studies typically evaluate each mechanism in isolation. This article introduces the concept of layered conditionality to explain how individually defensible regulatory requirements interact at the point of production. We conceptualize layering as additive when requirements duplicate information and fixed costs; substitutive when one compliance framework directly satisfies another; and catalytic when an established institution lowers the marginal costs of meeting subsequent rules. Using a structured, focused comparison of Indonesia and Ghana—the only two tropical timber exporters with operational Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) licensing architectures—we trace these interactions as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is superimposed onto domestic legality frameworks and private certification schemes. Our analysis demonstrates that while existing legality systems provide valuable institutional infrastructure, the EUDR’s formal recognition of FLEGT licenses is strictly limited to legality verification. It does not cover the regulation's distinct mandates for deforestation-free production, plot geolocation, or comprehensive due-diligence inquiries. Consequently, whether regulatory layering acts as an inclusive catalyst or an exclusionary barrier depends on system interoperability, the distribution of fixed information costs, and smallholder positioning within domestic value chains. The article concludes by identifying bounded, actionable policy reforms within the existing legal architecture ahead of full EUDR application in December 2026.

Malaysia and Indonesia initiated disputes before the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging amendments that the EU made to its Biofuel Regime. These amendments form part of a broader legislative package designed to operationalise the EU's legally binding commitment to climate neutrality by 2050 under the European Green Deal. The resulting Palm Oil panel reports represent a significant moment in WTO jurisprudence, marking the organisation's first substantive engagement with measures adopted pursuant to the EU Green Deal; and, more broadly, with climate change regulation framed as trade-restrictive environmental policy. This article argues that the panel reports demonstrate a notable receptivity to the distinctive characteristics of climate change and climate governance. That receptivity is reflected in three key interpretative developments. First, the panels drew upon international climate law to establish a 'sufficient nexus' between the EU and the objective of limiting indirect land-use change (ILUC)-related greenhouse gas emissions, thereby accommodating the global nature of climate harm within WTO disciplines. Second, the panels adopted a 'material contribution' standard under Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), transplanting a concept traditionally associated with Article XX of the GATT 1994 into the TBT context. This move signals a greater openness to precautionary regulatory action in circumstances of scientific uncertainty. Third, in assessing the French TIRIB tax measure under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), the panels exhibited sensitivity to the climate-policy rationale underlying the measure, particularly in their selection of analytical benchmarks. This article asks whether the Palm Oil panel reports signal an emerging doctrinal accommodation of climate governance within WTO law, and, if so, what implications this has for future Green Deal measures. Taken together, these interpretative choices suggest an emerging judicial willingness within WTO dispute settlement to accommodate climate-oriented regulatory autonomy, provided that such measures are structured and administered in a manner that does not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.

Achieving a balanced approach to sustainability in the Asia-Pacific requires the effective protection, preservation and equitable use of traditional knowledge. Despite recognised contributions to biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation, Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems remain structurally excluded from statutory regimes. Fragmentation between intellectual property law, environmental regulation and Indigenous governance inhibits holistic protection, impeding broader ecologically and culturally sustainable outcomes. The article examines this legal disjuncture through a jurisdictional comparison of disconnection and coherence, with Australia and Vanuatu illustrating opposite ends of a regional governance spectrum. Australia's Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) fail to protect First Nations knowledge or respect Indigenous epistemologies. In contrast, Pacific Island nations represent a regional bright spot. Vanuatu has developed inclusive, culturally grounded frameworks that embed customary law, Indigenous consent and benefit-sharing to protect Ni-Vanuatu knowledge. Drawing on international and regional instruments, including the recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, the article identifies emerging normative standards and persistent structural limitations. Comparative insights from Australia and Vanuatu support a reform agenda relevant to other settler-colonial and postcolonial contexts in the Asia-Pacific. Sustainability-aligned governance requires shifting from extractive, state-centric models to relational, pluralistic legal architectures. This includes harmonising intellectual property and environmental law, formally recognising customary systems and embedding Indigenous authority as a foundational pillar.

This article critically evaluates the administration of legal aid funding in Bangladesh, while drawing valuable insights from the legal aid systems of England and Wales and New South Wales (Australia). Access to justice, a fundamental human right enshrined in international frameworks, plays a vital role in both political and social contexts. However, financial constraints often prevent individuals from effectively exercising this right, particularly when navigating formal and informal justice systems. As a constitutional obligation, Bangladesh is mandated to ensure access to justice for all citizens. Through empirical analysis, the study identifies significant shortcomings in Bangladesh's legal aid framework, including inadequate funding, institutional inefficiencies, procedural hurdles, and bureaucratic complexities that impede access to justice. Drawing on the best practices of the countries examined, the article proposes the adoption of alternative legal aid services as a viable strategy to mitigate the challenges facing Bangladesh's existing system and to enhance the effectiveness of legal aid delivery.

Abstract This chapter explores environmental law within the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), comprising Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. SAARC countries share the constitutional recognition to a right to a clean environment. Whilst this is explicit in newly created constitutions (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Nepal), this right has been read into other existing rights (such as the right to life) in older constitutions (India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). The former have borrowed principles and ideas from the latter through shared constitutional mechanisms, that is, Directive Principles thus illustrating the cross-fertilization of environmental law within the SAARC. Furthermore, SAARC members share implementation and enforcement challenges, including a lack of technical, human and financial capacity, as well as low environmental literacy. The SAARC can overcome these challenges by improving access to justice to allow maturation of environmental law and to further regional cooperation.

The global shift to decarbonization and a sustainable economic development underscores the importance of a just energy transition. In 2019, Indonesia's energy sector accounted for 34.5 per cent of its total emissions (LULUCF included). While transitioning to green energy is paramount, it is laden with interwoven challenges encompassing technological innovation, infrastructure expansion, financing, and harmonizing socio-economic and environmental outcomes. At the heart of a just energy transition is the commitment to counteract potential setbacks, such as unemployment, ecological degradation, and ensuring equitable prospects within the transformative phase. This article delves into Indonesia's legislative and policy framework regarding energy transition, spotlighting the obstacles and potentialities of implementing current strategies as well as contemplating the formulation of future policies that champion justice in the energy metamorphosis. Our research methodology includes a literature review with extensive interviews with pivotal stakeholders. The goal is to gauge the ramifications of Indonesia's energy policies in their social, economic, and environmental dimensions. While Indonesia has an impressive potential in renewable energy resources, a distinct challenge remains - the absence of transparency in orchestrating a just energy transition. Forthcoming legislation and strategies should focus on community needs, particularly of marginalized people, ensuring that they benefit from a just energy transition. Incorporating stakeholders in policy deliberations is vital to shape comprehensive, inclusive strategies.

Trade has an important and lasting impact on biodiversity conservation. This is especially true for two of the most unique mega-diverse ecosystems in the world: Australia and China. Not only does trade perpetuate unsustainable economic practices that exacerbate biodiversity loss, but it also has a direct influence on the ability for both Australia and China to implement effective policies aimed at biodiversity conservation. This article will explore the nexus between biodiversity conservation and international trade through the lens of the Australia – China trade relationship. To explore this issue, this article will first discuss the ideological foundations of the WTO , viz , a rules-based system aimed at promoting trade liberalisation. Whilst the WTO does not specifically regulate biodiversity, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT ) does contain several provisions as general exceptions which enable Members to reconcile competing priorities of trade liberalisation on one hand, and sustainable development on the other. This article will then explore the trade and biodiversity nexus present within the China and Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA). Whilst ChAFTA contains several innovations which can improve biodiversity conservation, the Agreement also contains provisions which inhibit transparency and the ability for environmental non-government organisations to submit amicus curiae briefs in ISDS arbitration. Through a comparative analysis of other bilateral trade treaties, this article advocates for an approach which addresses these issues, including addressing systemic concerns regarding global biodiversity conservation.