Climate Change, Migration, and the Limits of EU Solidarity: Rethinking the Temporary Protection Directive

A “lifeline out of the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 crisis”? An ecofeminist critique of the European Green Deal

The article analyzes the legal foundations for the protection of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) within the context of the European Union (EU) and Ukraine. The focus is on international and European legal instruments that regulate refugee status and provide temporary protection to individuals affected by armed conflicts. The article particularly examines the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) and the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU) and the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), which harmonize refugee protection across Member States and ensure consistency in asylum procedures establishing legal frameworks for granting protection to those fleeing war, especially in the context of russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The urgency of this article is highlighted by the war in Ukraine, which has led to unprecedented displacement in Europe, testing the capacities of EU Member States and exposing both strengths and gaps in existing legal frameworks. The paper also addresses the evolving nature of international refugee protection and its alignment with human rights doctrines, offering a comprehensive analysis of how international and regional legal standards interact in practice. This article explores how international frameworks for refugee protection, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, have been incorporated into the European Union’s legal system. These international instruments define the rights of refugees and the obligations of states, especially regarding the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where their lives or freedom may be at risk. In the EU, these frameworks are primarily integrated through the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and it’s key component - the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), which aligns EU law with international standards on refugee protection. The study emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards, including fair and transparent asylum processes and special protections for vulnerable groups. In addition, the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) plays a key role in addressing mass displacement, offering immediate protection in situations of crisis. This directive was activated for the first time in 2022 in response to the war in Ukraine, providing a coordinated EU-wide approach to managing the influx of displaced Ukrainians and preventing the collapse of national asylum systems. The article also discusses the legal challenges and issues that the EU and Ukraine face in providing protection and support to refugees and IDPs. The research underscores the importance of coordination between the EU and Ukraine’s legal systems to ensure proper protection for asylum seekers. An essential aspect is the harmonization of approaches and the improvement of the effectiveness of legal mechanisms in response to current global migration challenges. The findings emphasize the need for continued legal collaboration between the parties to create a more comprehensive and consistent system for refugee protection.

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

The Green Deal is an ambitious European development strategy that aims to create a carbon-neutral and environmentally friendly economy. This strategy encompasses key environmental policies such as climate change, circular economy, and sustainable development. Due to its broad and comprehensive definition and sectoral coverage, the European Union’s Bioeconomy Strategy, which is linked to the supply and demand of natural resources, is also crucial to the implementation of the Green Deal. However, there has been very little evaluation of the role of bioeconomy development in the European Green Deal. Therefore, by comparing the documents of these policies, the aim of this paper is to identify the main roles of the bioeconomy in the European Green Deal and overlaps, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of the implementation of these policies. The bioeconomy goals overlap with the European Green Deal targets. Looking at the eight main goals of the European Green Deal, all of them are related to the implementation of the bioeconomy. Preserving biodiversity and Farm to Fork actions are directly linked to the development of the bioeconomy, while the residual actions are partly linked to this development. In order to implement the Bioeconomy Strategy and the European Green Deal policy, it is essential to evaluate the vulnerability of biomass to the effects of climate change and the growing food crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, the sustainable use of biomass and the promotion of biomass consumption in the energy, building, and transport sectors need to be examined.

The global climate crisis poses an existential threat to the natural ecosystem and the entire humanity, while new effects (Covid-19, war in Ukraine, etc.) and factors increase the risk to national security and public stability in the EU countries and beyond. The most important global challenge of our time has prompted the formation of climate change management policies around the world; international agreements have been concluded for this purpose. In 2015 the Paris Agreement was signed and the United Nations General Assembly approved the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development until 2030. The goal 13 "Take urgent action to combat climate change and its effects" and tasks for the implementation of this goal were established and approved by the EU legal acts. The European Green Deal was initiated to define the EU's vision of creating a climate-neutral economy by 2050. Those interested in climate change and the green course often raise the question of whether everything possible has been done to prevent (stop) or eliminate climate "erosion" processes. To climate change sceptics, these documents or efforts may seem excessive (and expensive), but it is important to determine whether the full-fledged, comprehensive or targeted communication is available in the EU, whether the dissemination of public information about the processes of the green deal is sufficient and what the management of this information entails. This is because information management is one of the most important components of the successful implementation of the Green Deal. The supreme audit institutions of the EU countries conducted assessment of EU countries in preparation for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The assessment of the public's knowledge and understanding of the EU green deal was performed using a uniform, approved and generally accepted control model. The article aims to analyse the role of information management in implementation of the Green Deal in the EU and the US by distinguishing the 2020-2022 period of global COVID-19 pandemic based on a Lithuanian case study.

Climate change brings new challenges to the world. With its high environmental standards, the European Union is one of the most active players in global climate action. We are currently witnessing an extremely rapid process of transforming the political doctrine of the European Union into hard-law standards legal system. The so-called "European Green Deal" implements ideas of sustainable development in the area of, among others, energy, waste, but also transport, construction and electronic equipment sectors. One of the instruments for implementing the "European Green Deal" is the "Circular Economy", which, using European Union law, profoundly interferes with the economic freedoms of entrepreneurs but also consumers. Observing these activities can be interesting, especially when viewed from a certain distance and critical perspective. This text is devoted to analysing selected regulations constituting the currently created "European Green Deal" and its agenda. It also aims to indicate regulations interference in the sphere of private law, which has not yet been so much the domain of environmental law. The author presents a hypothesis on a gradual transgression of the traditional boundary between public and private law or the blurring of that boundary in the case of recent environmental legislation of the European Union.The dogmatic-legal analysis applied to the currently binding regulations for a fuller understanding also requires the application of the historical-legal method to earlier regulations. Their joint application makes it possible to indicate the direction of the new law dedicated to implementing the newest environmental-legal doctrine of the European Union. The layout of the study was subordinated to this aim, as well as its structure. The study is based on national and international literature on business law, environmental law and administrative law. Legal status up to date as of 31.07.2021.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

The article analyzes the problems of temporary protection of Ukrainian citizens in the European Union through the prism of global migration processes and the war in Ukraine. It is noted that the EU Member States, cooperating in the field of granting European protection status to persons facing a real threat in the country of transit or country of origin, have assumed political, legal and moral responsibility for the lives of these persons, the protection of their rights and legitimate interests, and the organization of social and economic support for their existence within the EU. Given the prospects for Ukraine to become a full member of the EU, a comprehensive study of a regulatory, legal and institutional measures implemented in the current conditions of the war in Ukraine by the Russian Federation, as well as the analysis and forecasting of the potential consequences of the acts in the field of temporary protection of Ukrainian citizens, which together constitute the so-called migration pact of the European Union, are of particular relevance in the context of the updated political and legal agenda of the EU regarding Ukraine. In addition, the accumulated European experience in legal support for integration policy in the field of forced migration may influence the development of legal regulation of relevant social relations within the framework of joint integration projects of the EU and Ukraine in terms of the integration of our state into the European community. Full-scale aggression against Ukraine has created new challenges and threats for countries: for Ukraine as a victim of aggression; for EU countries as states that provide temporary shelter to Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war; for other countries that host Ukrainian refugees. Ukrainian citizens who are forcibly staying in the countries of the European Union have the right to obtain temporary protection status (in accordance with the terms of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD). It was emphasized that due to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, millions of people have fled the war, seeking asylum in the countries of the European Union. The EU stands in full solidarity with Ukraine and its people. In response to Russia’s aggression, the EU has demonstrated unity and strength and provided Ukraine with coordinated humanitarian, political, financial and material support. In particular, specific measures have been taken to provide assistance to refugees from Ukraine, namely: a temporary protection mechanism for Ukrainians in the EU, humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in Ukraine, support for the civil protection of Ukraine, countries hosting refugees (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and the Republic of Moldova), as well as the UN Refugee Agency, financial and technical support to Member States hosting refugees, support for border control for EU countries hosting refugees. It is concluded that the practice of European states regarding refugees shows the desire for comprehensive cooperation. At the same time, legal regulation in this area reflects the internal policy of states regarding the provision of asylum. Asylum is the provision of protection by the state to a forced migrant, which consists in a guarantee of non-return to a country where he is threatened with the danger of such persecution (the principle of non-Refoulement), the possibility of temporary or permanent residence and the provision of such a person with fundamental human rights and freedoms. An unconditional achievement of the international legal system for the protection of refugees can be called the additional consolidation of the institution of temporary asylum.

This editorial paper tackles the issue of the consumer attitudes toward energy reduction and changing energy consumption behaviors. This topic is of special relevance today as Europe faces an unprecedented energy crisis as a result of diverting from Russian supplies of oil and gas due to the war in Ukraine. For many years now, Europe has relied upon cheap and affordable Russian oil and gas (in fact, the European Green Deal and the strategy for the decarbonization of the economy by 2030 were indirectly based on it), but the transition to the renewable future now appears to be jeopardized. As energy prices are soaring globally, it is not yet clear whether this would have an effect on significantly changing consumer behavior and increasing energy efficiency and security as many consumers are reluctant to change their old habits and are used to having their energy on demand and for any possible occasion. However, changing energy consumption behaviors would be beneficial not only for handling the current energy crisis but also for setting the long-term trends with respect to energy saving, which is crucial for fighting global warming and climate change while sustaining economic growth.

The concern about main crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and climate change's impact on energy-saving behavior

Since the 1990s, a number of local and regional governments around the world have started to engage in a real international or ‘paradiplomatic’ climate agenda. While the multilevel governance approach has advanced the examination of the actors and levels involved in climate governance, there is within this body of literature a limited consideration of the legal capacity of non-state actors to act across scales. This article addresses this gap and examines the potential limitations imposed on subnational diplomacy by international and domestic legal orders. The article draws upon the example of Brazil where, despite constitutional limitations on the involvement of subnational governments in international relations, paradiplomacy has been termed ‘federative diplomacy’ and institutionalized within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and within the Presidency of the Republic. The article shows that the diplomatic activity of local and regional governments is still constrained by international and domestic legal frameworks. If cities and regions are to help in addressing the inadequacies of the international climate regime, then domestic and international legal frameworks will need to further accommodate subnational diplomatic activities.

Migration and displacement related to climate change have received increasing attention in the media, in research and among policymakers in recent years. A range of studies have produced extremely concerning statistics and forecasts about the potential scale of migration and displacement due to climate change now and in the future. For example, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre calculated that in 2019 alone almost 25 million people were displaced by disasters such as floods and tropical storms – three times the number displaced by conflict and violence (IDMC 2020a). The World Bank’s 2018 Groundswell report estimated that, if substantial climate change mitigation and development measures are not taken, slow-onset climate impacts could displace as many as 143 million people in just three world regions, or 55 percent of the developing world’s population, by 2050 (Rigaud et al. 2018). These kinds of figures have been widely reported and drive the prevailing narrative in media and policy debates that climate change will lead to mass migration and displacement, which, in turn, can lead to conflict. There is empirical evidence that rising temperatures, leading to disasters and slow-onset impacts such as drought or sea-level rise are already playing a role in setting people across the world on the move, and these numbers are likely to increase as climate change impacts intensify (UNINE n.d.; IOM’s GMDAC 2020). However, the links between climate change, migration, displacement and conflict are complex, and vary widely between contexts. The growing community of research on this topic has warned that, without an adequate understanding of the pathways of mobility, predictions of millions of climate migrants and displaced people can cast responses in alarmistic and counter-productive tones (Flavell et al. 2020). Policy on displacement, migration and climate change can therefore profit from investing in fine-grained analyses of the different factors shaping human mobility, and using them to support the development of effective responses that address the needs of migrants, as well as their home and destination communities. Along these lines, this paper examines the interaction between biophysical climate impacts, migration, displacement and (in)security. It aims to go beyond the prevailing narratives to better understand the different ways in which mobility can serve as an adaptive strategy to climate- and conflict-related risks and vulnerabilities. It also aims to assess how effective mobility is as an adaptation strategy and will continue to be in light of other stresses, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on two case studies, Bangladesh and Central Asia, each presenting different human mobility pathways. It adopts a diversity lens to consider how the success/effectiveness of mobility strategies is sensitive to the position of individuals in society and the opportunities they have. It also considers how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the ability of climate-vulnerable populations to use mobility as an effective adaptation strategy, considering movement restrictions, increased unemployment in cities, reduced opportunities for seasonal work (e.g. in the agriculture sector), return migration and impacts on remittance flows. In conclusion, the paper makes recommendations to inform governments in countries of origin and international development and humanitarian policies and programmes in relation to mobility and climate change/security, including those of the EU and EU member states. Firstly, climate-induced mobility should be included in and addressed through broader adaptation and development efforts, for example building urban infrastructure, promoting nature-based adaptation, and ensuring adequate social protection and education. Policies and legal frameworks on migration and displacement in countries of origin should also be strengthened, ensuring the coordination between existing policies at all levels. Global cooperation will be essential to build international standards. And finally, all programming should be supported by an improved knowledge base on climate-induced migration and displacement, including gender- and age- disaggregated data.

For many years legal thought and practice focused on the general concept of environmental rights as a legal tool meant to enforce the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment. Whilst there is an undeniable link between human rights and climate change, as illustrated notably by the global phenomenon of the climate change litigation, this monograph focuses on the growing role of potential, sectoral fundamental rights and tailored remedies available in the EU legal order in absence of a substantive fundamental right to a healthy environment in EU law. Against the background of the European Green Deal and its ambitious climate-neutrality goal by 2050, the book echoes the sustainability-based approach and its limits. Contributors analyse two interrelated perspectives. On the one hand, authors explore the procedural dimension by discussing the climate litigation and the limits of the concept of human environmental rights, state liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law, national remedies available in case of bad condition of the environment as well as the limits of the public interest litigation and challenges related to climate claims against private actors in national law. On the other hand, contributors discuss substantive aspects from a global perspective of food insecurity, soil monitoring and resilience as well as digitalisation, green skills and climate-induced migration. With insights from leading experts, this work highlights the evolving tensions and expectations within the EU legal framework. Essential for legal practitioners, policymakers, academics, and students of law and administration, this book offers a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between sustainability, climate action, and the protection of fundamental rights in EU law.

Within the sustainable development (SD) paradigm, the European Green Deal (EGD) sets dynamic energy transition goals for the European Union (EU). However, diverse dynamics among member states, exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, directly influence this progress. This paper aims to present the energy transition course in EU countries up against the implementation of the objectives of the EGD. This paper conducts a thematic (scoping) literature review and comparative analysis of energy transition progress in all EU countries, concentrating on Poland, which faces unique challenges, including a sluggish pace of energy transition and the effects of the Russian invasion on Ukraine in this regard. Recommendations for Poland include an intensified focus on investments in renewable energy sources (RES) and low-carbon installations. The results demonstrate that collective success in SD necessitates each EU member fulfilling national climate goals, emphasising the need for a unified commitment to navigate complexities and build a sustainable future.

With the European Green Deal (EGD), the European Commission presented an ambitious roadmap for accelerated “ecological modernisation” in December 2019. Semantically, the EGD is linked to the New Deal and the debates surrounding the Green New Deal. In contrast, the European Commission’s strategy aims less at profound social change and the questioning of social power relations. Rather, the EGD remains largely within the leitmotif of “ecological modernisation”, which relies on technological innovations without far-reaching social change. The thrust of the EGD bears the hallmark of ecological modernisation; it is about reconciling economy and ecology, about continuing the growth path under green auspices. The greening of the EU is to take place primarily by means of technological innovations. Amongst others, clean hydrogen and carbon dioxide removals (CDR) are central pillars to reach the aim of climate neutrality by 2050. Technological improvements are closely linked to the aim of improving the competitiveness of the European economy and stabilising global power relations under a green mantle. Such a strategy runs the risk of renewing social inequalities within the EU as well as globally. In addition, the war in Ukraine raises further problems for the fulfilment of the EGD.