A modernised ECT reflecting EU values and objectives: a multilateral framework promoting energy investment in a sustainable way?

Editorial: Governing the EU's climate and energy transition through the 2030 Framework

The Paris Agreement on climate change is the newest, inclusive and most ambitious international agreement to combat the complex problem of climate change, adopted on 12th December 2015 at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).With clearer available scientific evidence and better understanding, various stakeholders have now recognized that climate change is a complex problem, which although environmental in nature, has consequences for all spheres of existence on our planet. It either impacts on, or is impacted by, global issues, including poverty, economic development, population growth, sustainable development and natural resource management. It is not surprising then, that solutions come from all disciplines and fields of research and development.At the very heart of the responses to climate change, however, lies the need to reduce emissions. Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the UNFCC, the COP 21 in Paris decided to adopt the Paris Agreement as one of the most remarkable outcomes of the two week long Paris climate negotiations.Destined to become a legally binding agreement, separate from the COP 21 Decision, the Paris Agreement recorded a historic figure, on April 22, 2016 in New York, of 175 signatories on a single opening day. This is by far the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement on a single day.Putting the first universal climate change treaty in context, the Paris Agreement is expected to come into force, upon ratification, from the year 2020, replacing the existing Kyoto Protocol under which only developed countries have binding emission reduction targets. The Paris Agreement is all encompassing, with legal obligations on all countries to report and account for their mitigation actions. It offers clear direction with long term goals and signals; a commitment to return regularly to make climate action stronger; a response to the impact of extreme climate events on the most vulnerable group; the transparency needed to ensure action takes place and; finance, capacity building and technology to enable real change. It offers a new type of international cooperation where developed and developing countries are united in a common legal framework, and all are involved and engaged contributors. It reflects the growing recognition that climate action offers tremendous opportunities and benefits, and that climate impacts can be tackled effectively, with the unity of purpose that has brought us to this moment.With respect to the Paris climate negotiations itself, it is clear that it was the failure of the COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009 to conclude the negotiations initiated in Bali that resulted in parties ultimately hitting the reset button in Durban with an eye toward negotiating a new post 2020 climate change regime by 2015 in Paris. Notwithstanding the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 2012, COP 19 in 2013 adopted key decisions including decision on further advancing the Durban platform. In 2014, COP 20 held in Lima, concluded with the adoption of the ‘Lima call for climate action’, or document inviting all parties to the UNFCC to communicate their intended national contributions to post-2020 climate action well before the Paris conference in 2015.Obviously, the French presidency of the Paris Climate Negotiations learned from past failures such as the Copenhagen COP in 2009. It resisted throughout the two weeks, the temptation to shift to a negotiation process, sometimes referred to as the ‘friends of the chair’, that would have excluded all but a few negotiating blocs and parties considered to be key to a successful outcome. Instead, the French presidency ensured every party had the opportunity to review each successive version of the text, and to submit its views directly to the presidency. In the end, it was a remarkable outcome of this effort that produced the Paris Agreement, which includes elements of, but also differs from, each previous international climate change agreements. The Paris Agreement therefore, is a further evolution of international climate change law.It is against this contextual background that this paper seeks to achieve the following objectives:I. To examine the rationale behind, and underscore the importance of, the legal character of the Paris Agreement;II. Analyse the structure of legal commitments and approaches to monitoring implementation of the Agreement;III. Analyse the scope of the key elements;IV. Assess the implications of the Agreement for sustainable development and the energy sector;Conclude with viable options for Africa and Nigeria.

On 24 June 2022, the Contracting Parties of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) finalized discussions on the modernization of the treaty. After fifteen rounds of negotiations, an agreement in principle was reached to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference on 22 November 2022 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.1 The ECT, adopted in 1994, establishes a legal framework that aims to promote international cooperation in the energy sector.2 It has a membership of 53 countries primarily from Europe and Central Asia, as well as the European Union (EU) and the European Atomic Energy Community. In recent years, the ECT attracted widespread public attention due to its impact on states’ environmental and climate policies. Particularly, the treaty’s provisions on investment protection, with investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the centre, allow foreign investors in the energy sector to challenge adverse state action before international arbitration and claim compensation for measures affecting their business activities. Fossil fuel investors have increasingly used the ECT to challenge environmental and climate measures, such as phasing out coal-fired power generation, banning offshore oil drilling in coastal areas, and prohibiting gas fracking projects. Such cases have fuelled concerns regarding the abilities of governments to roll-out large-scale climate action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that international investment agreements (IIAs) like the ECT could ‘be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets’.3 With some of these damage claims running into billions of euros, the ECT enables fossil fuel investors to offload the costs and risks associated with their affected assets onto society at large in the face of necessary climate action. This would go, in the words of the editorial board of the Financial Times, against the ‘heart of the capitalist social contract’ and the ‘ability of markets to deal adequately with the challenge of climate change’.4

De-risking Renewable Energy Investments in Developing Countries: A Multilateral Guarantee Mechanism

The 2022 Europe report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: towards a climate resilient future

As life expectancy increases society will face many unprecedented challenges. One of these will be housing tenure, for the type of home and community in which people live can have a direct impact on health and quality of life. In New Zealand, retirement village living is attracting considerable interest from an increasing proportion of the older population. The purpose of this paper is to consider how living in a retirement village influences the leisure experiences of 121 men and women, ranging in age from 69 to 91 years. Two themes that emerged from focus group discussions in 12 different villages were ‘sense of belonging’ and ‘new lease of life’. The residents argued that the lifestyle within a retirement village provided a supportive and invigorating environment that resonated with their changing circumstances and offered a chance for self-contentment and self-fulfilment in a way that prompted a new lease of life.

Behavioral science approaches to promoting sustainable action have mainly focused on cognitive processes, whereas the role of emotions has received comparably little attention. However, emotions have a great but currently not fully exploited potential to contribute to a sustainable behavior change. In this perspective, we summarize recent research emphasizing the central and indispensable role of emotion in human thinking and judgment. We discuss how these insights can promote affective reactivity toward sustainability issues, help leverage the potential of emotion to motivate action, and improve emotional climate change communication and intervention strategies. We outline a research agenda that we see as crucial for obtaining a solid evidence base on how emotions can optimally promote sustainable behavior. This paper is meant to stimulate discussion and a coordinated research effort on how emotions may be better leveraged to promote large-scale sustainable action and to promote a stronger integration of emotional strategies into the toolbox of policy makers.

<p>This article (published in the Austrian Yearbook On <span>International </span><span>Arbitration 2026)</span><span>  examines whether the European Union and its Member States can effectively eliminate investment protection for fossil fuel investments under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) either by remaining parties to the modernised ECT or by withdrawing from it. Following the adoption of the ECT modernisation package in December 2024, the  novel “flexibility mechanism” was introduced through amendments to Annex NI of the ECT, enabling contracting parties to phase out protection for fossil fuel investments within their territories. The EU makes use of this mechanism. The article shows that this technique—based on modifications of annexes rather than the treaty text—has immediate and legally binding effects for newly made fossil-fuel based investments from September 2025 onwards, irrespective of provisional application or the entry into force of the modernised ECT, and that it establishes a differentiated phase-out regime for existing </span><span>fossil-fuel based investments</span><span> .</span></p> <p>The article contrasts this mechanism with the alternative strategy of withdrawal from the ECT combined with the EU’s inter se agreement excluding intra-EU investor–State arbitration and the operation of the sunset clause. It argues that, while withdrawal eliminates protection for fossil fuel investments in principle, its legal effects are delayed and structurally limited by the survival clause, which continues to apply in extra-EU relations, and by the contested permissibility of inter se modifications under the ECT and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.</p> <p>The article concludes that neither modernisation nor withdrawal can, on their own, comprehensively neutralise fossil fuel investment protection. In particular, it highlights the need for additional inter se arrangements with non-EU ECT parties and for the reform of extra-EU bilateral investment treaties, which continue to provide parallel protection for fossil fuel investments irrespective of both modernisation of the ECT and withdrawal from the ECT. </p>

This article focuses on the sunset clause of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The ECT is a multilateral investor‐state arbitration treaty which allows for the use of investor‐state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals to arbitrate challenges arising from shifts in energy policy that lead to a loss in profits for relevant energy companies. The treaty has become controversial as climate activists have alleged it is slowing down efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Withdrawal from the ECT does not necessarily solve the alleged issues as the treaty contains a sunset clause, allowing for the provisions of the ECT to remain in force for 20 years post withdrawal. This article seeks to analyse various mechanisms and strategies for neutralising the sunset clause as part of a wider effort to ensure the ECT does not interfere with the phasing out of fossil fuels. It will be argued that such neutralisation should be possible through the use of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), on the basis that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances since the inception of the treaty. This use of the rebus sic stantibus doctrine can be justified on the basis that a swift and substantial transition away from fossil fuels is now required to ensure states can meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement. This article will also explore alternatives to an Article 62 VCLT argument (i.e. a fundamental change in circumstances) that could nonetheless achieve the primary goal of ensuring that states are not bound to a pro fossil‐fuel treaty. Examples of alternatives include the insertion of a climate carve‐out to remove protections from investments that hinder climate action or the use of the defence of necessity in future ECT arbitration cases to argue that the state should not remain bound to the sunset clause. Regardless of whichever scenario is pursued by states, the article seeks to highlight that any and all efforts must be made to neutralise the sunset clause to ensure there is no interference with necessary efforts to pursue climate action.

“Sustainable Development” has come a long way since the World Commission on Environment and Development first popularized the term in 1987. Virtually everyone is now familiar with the term Sustainable Development, from states to multinational corporations, and from affluent communities in the Global North to impoverished communities in the Global South. It received a new lease of life in 2015 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is recognized that sustainable development requires an inter-disciplinary, multi-level, and bottom-up approach, and that this ideal is easy to state but difficult to operationalize. Pursuant to deliberations at an international workshop at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which aimed at fostering the exchange of ideas among diverse experts and developing solutions for effective inclusion of women and youth in climate change response strategies, we propose an innovative, practical three-dimensional model that enhances sustainability theory and practice with cross-cutting integration of human rights, gender equity, and Indigenous and local knowledge. We evaluate the utility of the model in two ways: First, we analyze how the model informs current approaches to environmental sustainability and human wellbeing including the SDGs, agroecology, de-growth principles, and planetary health metrics. Then, we explore the feasibility and added value of the approach through seven case studies from Guatemala, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Peru, Côte D’Ivoire, and Aotearoa—New Zealand. We conclude that the proposed model is congruent with current theory and practice. It builds on existing principles by identifying and addressing gaps. It enables practical action in a variety of settings and fosters a more integrated approach to sustainable wellbeing for humanity and our earth. We recommend continued development of this theoretical framework and related guidelines for program design, implementation and evaluation.

This article provides a critical assessment of the ‘modernisation’ process of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). First, the research frames the ECT reform as a means for resolving the clash between the treaty and climate action, that cannot be effectively managed through conflicts rules. Consequently, the text of the ‘modernised’ ECT is analysed, with particular attention to the ‘flexibility mechanism’ for the optional progressive carve out of fossil-fuel investments, which is supposed to represent the key tool to make the ECT climate-friendly. The research shows that even this mechanism would ensure fossil-fuel investments protection at the crucial stage of energy transition. Therefore, the hypothesis of a withdrawal of the EU and its Member States is considered. Before mentioning the potential legal hurdles of this strategy, the research aims at understanding its impact on the political economy of investment law. Hence, the ‘geopolitical’ and ‘neoliberal’ drivers of the treaty are analysed through the notion of ‘institutional project’. Notwithstanding the unclear legal consequences of withdrawal, its symbolic value goes far beyond the ECT alone, certifying an unprecedented setback in the project of investment law.

Financial incentives to poor countries promote net emissions reductions in multilateral climate agreements

Carbon removals from nature restoration are no substitute for steep emission reductions

Blockchain solutions for carbon markets are nearing maturity

Climate change is undeniably the greatest threat humanity has ever faced, and its challenges can only be addressed through multilateral means. Lacking in accountability and enforcement mechanisms, however, the Paris Agreement requires additional support to achieve its full effect. This paper proposes a novel approach for refocusing the multilateral trading system and facilitating the Paris Agreement. Although not perfectly aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the WTO’s multilateral framework could provide the necessary flexibilities to work towards meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets. There are three prongs to using the WTO as a vehicle to achieve progress on climate change. First, the preamble to the Agreement Establishing the WTO explicitly recognizes sustainable development as a goal, seeking to protect and preserve the environment. It also recognizes the need for developing countries to share in the growth in international trade. Giving meaning and effect to sustainable development is key to facilitating the Paris Agreement. The second prong recognizes that certain types of climate change mitigation measures may require violating WTO rules. In such circumstances, limited carve-outs in the mold of the Public Stockpiling Exception relating to food security, with additional built-in sunset provisions, would provide support for countries working to meet their targets, allowing them the ability to break from WTO rules to support domestic industries. Finally, the third prong envisions the negotiation of a multilateral or plurilateral agreement to help give effect to the Paris Agreement, much as the WTO already works in tandem with WIPO in relation to TRIPS and with the WCO in relation to the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). Key to this agreement would be special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions. The TFA contains next generation S&DT provisions, which could be leveraged in the context of a future plurilateral or multilateral agreement to help give effect to the Paris Agreement.