L’interdépendance de l’environnement a mis en évidence le besoin de la communauté internationale de trouver des mécanismes capables de dépasser les frontières et de protéger les biens naturels d’intérêt commun. Étant donné l’inefficacité du concept de patrimoine commun de l’humanité en ce qui a trait à la protection des biens soumis à la souveraineté d’un État, cette étude analyse l’application de la responsabilité internationale au « dommage transfrontière médiat » (c’est-à-dire, le dommage environnemental qui a lieu à l’intérieur d’un territoire étatique, mais qui caractérise une perte au patrimoine environnemental planétaire) comme mesure capable de surmonter les frontières et de protéger l’environnement. La responsabilité internationale se présente sous deux formes en droit international public général, soit la responsabilité des États pour les activités non interdites par le droit international (ou la responsabilité objective), soit celle découlant d’un fait internationalement illicite. Cette dernière comporte encore deux subdivisions : celle ayant pour cause une « violation d’une obligation internationale » et celle pour une « violation grave d’obligation découlant de normes impératives du droit international général ». L’analyse des principes de droit environnemental international et du principe de la souveraineté démontre que le « dommage transfrontière médiat » pourrait, en théorie, être considéré comme un fait internationalement illicite permettant donc la responsabilisation d’un État. / The interdependence of the environment has highlighted the need for the international community to find mechanisms that are able to work beyond national borders and protect the natural assets of common interest. Given the inefficiency of the concept of common heritage of mankind for the protection of the natural assets subject to the sovereignty of a State, this study provides an analysis of the application of international responsibility to mediate transboundary harm (e.g. the environmental harm taking place in State’s territory that causes a loss to the planetary natural heritage) as a mechanism that can overcome borders and protect the environment. There are two types of international responsibility in general public international law. The first one consists of the State responsibility for activities not prohibited by international law; and the second one deals with the origin of an internationally wrongful act, which, in turn, has two subdivisions: one due to "violation of an international obligation" and another caused by "serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law." The analysis of the principles of international environmental law and the principle of sovereignty demonstrate that “mediate transboundary harm” could in theory be considered an internationally wrongful act, therefore allowing the accountability of a state.

Le Fonds pour l’environnement mondial (FEM) est la plus importante source individuelle de financement aux projets et programmes destinés à promouvoir des bénéfices environnementaux globaux dans les pays en voie de développement et en transition. L’objectif de la thèse est d’examiner le rôle du FEM comme un outil de financement des conventions environnementales et du développement soutenable, en soulignant sa contribution à la mise en œuvre du droit international de l’environnement et au débat concernant la gouvernance environnementale internationale. / The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the most important single source of finance for projects and programs designed to promote global environmental benefits in developing countries and transition countries. The thesis aims at examining the role played by the GEF as a tool for financing environmental conventions and sustainable development, emphasizing its contribution to the enforcement of international environmental law and to the debate concerning international environmental governance.

L’arbitrage international, outre le recours aux tribunaux de l’État hôte, est la méthode la plus utilisée pour régler les différends relatifs aux investissements étrangers. Plusieurs accords internationaux d’investissement incluent des dispositions ayant trait à l’arbitrage sous l’égide du Centre International pour le Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI) mis en place par la Convention de Washington de 1966. Les tribunaux arbitraux constitués sous l’égide du Centre sont ainsi appelés à trancher des différends qui concernent la conduite d’États hôtes vis-à-vis ses investisseurs étrangers ; leurs décisions ayant de fortes conséquences sur l’intérêt public, concrètement lorsqu’il s’agit de la protection de l’environnement. L’évolution croissante du droit environnemental et son empiètement sur la protection des investissements a déclenché une série de différends qui ne se limitent plus à mettre en cause des nationalisations ou des violations de contrats - comme auparavant - mais tournent souvent autour de mesures étatiques de politique publique qui impliquent des questions sensibles telles que, inter alia, la gestion de déchets dangereux, l’accès à l’eau potable, l’étalement urbain, la protection de la biodiversité. Par conséquent, le rôle des tribunaux CIRDI et de leurs décisions devient décisif dans le développement du droit des investissements et dans le débat sur la protection des investissements face aux mesures législatives en matière environnementale. Cette étude a pour objet d’analyser la place des considérations environnementales dans les sentences arbitrales CIRDI. Spécifiquement, il s’agit d’étaler les principaux arguments retenus par les tribunaux internationaux, et de dégager les grandes tendances jurisprudentielles en matière d’arbitrage international d’investissements face aux mesures environnementales. / International arbitration is one of the most frequently used methods to resolve disputes related to foreign investment. Several international investment agreements include provisions relating to arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes established by the Washington Convention of 1966. Arbitral tribunals are called to resolve disputes concerning the conduct of host States vis-à-vis foreign investors. Their decisions have major consequences on the public interest, specifically when it comes to protecting the environment. The growing development of environmental law and its encroachment on investment protection has triggered a series of disputes that are no longer confined to questions of nationalization or breach of contracts as before, but often revolve around State public policy measures that involve sensitive issues such as, inter alia, hazardous waste management, access to clean water, urban sprawl, protection of biodiversity. The role of ICSID tribunals and their decisions is therefore critical in the development of investment law and the debate on investment protection and environmental regulation. This study aims to analyze the role of environmental considerations in ICSID arbitral awards. Specifically, it seeks to display the main arguments retained by international tribunals and to identify the major trends in international investment arbitration vis-à-vis environmental measures.

La problématique générale abordée dans cette thèse est la suivante : Peut-on continuer à libéraliser les échanges au niveau mondial sans simultanément faire respecter les règles de protection de l’environnement ?L’hypothèse d’une gouvernance mondiale pour un développement du durable du commerce et de l’environnement est-t-elle possible ?Ce débat relève d’une question fondamentale qui, historiquement, a souvent été abordée mais sans être jamaisréglée. Aujourd’hui, dans le contexte de crise actuelle et du processus de globalisation, il demeure d’une brûlante actualité.L’étude des relations du commerce et de l’environnement suscite un certain nombre d’interrogations, les interactions qui en découlent sont-elles compatibles.Les liens qui unissent l’économie et l’environnement sont désormais évidents, les effets de libération des échanges ont une incidence non négligeable sur l’environnement et inversement la protection de l’environnement influe nécessairement sur la nature de ces échanges.Les organisations et les institutions ayant pour objectif la protection de l’environnement sont- elles réellement efficaces ? Ne sont-elles pas trop éparpillées ? Ne manquent- elles pas de cohérence ?Les législations nationales et internationales sont- elles suffisantes ? Les dispositions sont-elles appliquées ?Dans un contexte ultra libéral, le phénomène de dérégularisation, semble favoriser l’épanouissement des activités économiques et financières au détriment d’un renforcement des mesures environnementales.Devant un tel constat, il semble de plus en plus opportun de parvenir à un rééquilibrage de la gouvernance mondiale en faveur de l’environnement. Quelles pourraient être, le cas échéant, les mesures à mettre en œuvre, les voies de conciliation envisageables pour harmoniser ces relations en apparence conflictuelles.Quelle est la position du droit international relatif à la protection de l’environnement face à celui du commerce.Il apparaît nécessaire d’envisager de combiner les règles du droit international du commerce fondées sur le dogme du libre échange et les impératifs vitaux du droit de la protection de l’environnement dans un cadre de développement durable.Doit-on envisager de créer pour cela une nouvelle enceinte internationale spécialisée qui régirait l’environnement mondial ? Ou au contraire renforcer une Organisation existante en la dotant d’une double compétence qui élaborerait un nouveau droit international du développement durable en édictant un corps de règles commerciales et environnementales unifiées et cohérentes ; (Une sorte d’international law of sustainable development) ?La transformation du système commercial multilatéral, le renforcement et le verdissement de ses structures apparaîsent comme des solutions possibles, pour parvenir à faire coexister les préoccupations environnementales et les exigences commerciales au sein d’un même cadre.Une autre gouvernance plus juste, plus équilibrée est possible, une mise en cohérence d’un ordre juridique environnemental et économique mondial n’est pas une utopie.Ce défi ambitieux représente probablement une occasion de juger de la nécessaire combinaison du droit de l’environnement et du commerce international. / Is the hypothesis of a more balanced global governance for the sustainable development ofboth trade and environment plausible?Are the institutions devoted to environmental protection really efficient?Are they not too scattered to be effective? Don’t they lack some kind of coherence?Can institutions in charge of trade development enforce environmental rules? Do they havethe means to do so?In an ultra-free market context the phenomenon of deregulation seems to favor thedevelopment of economic and financial activity at the expense of a strengthening ofenvironmental measures.It seems necessary to consider reconciling the rules of free trade-based international trade lawand the vital requirements of environmental protection law within the scope of sustainabledevelopment.Should then one contemplate creating a new specialized international body in charge ofgoverning the global environment? Or on the contrary, should one strengthen an alreadyexisting organization by granting it a dual competency , responsible for working out a newinternational sustainable development law by enacting a set of unified and coherent trade andenvironmental rules; ( A kind of international sustainable development law).The transformation of the multilateral system, the strengthening and the greening of itsstructures appear as possible solutions to handle both environmental concerns andcommercial requirements.This ambitious challenge of a fairer, more balanced global governance probably provides anopportunity to see how necessary it is to combine environmental law and international tradelaw; this coherence in global environmental and economic law seems possible.

L’interdépendance de l’environnement a mis en évidence le besoin de la communauté internationale de trouver des mécanismes capables de dépasser les frontières et de protéger les biens naturels d’intérêt commun. Étant donné l’inefficacité du concept de patrimoine commun de l’humanité en ce qui a trait à la protection des biens soumis à la souveraineté d’un État, cette étude analyse l’application de la responsabilité internationale au « dommage transfrontière médiat » (c’est-à-dire, le dommage environnemental qui a lieu à l’intérieur d’un territoire étatique, mais qui caractérise une perte au patrimoine environnemental planétaire) comme mesure capable de surmonter les frontières et de protéger l’environnement. La responsabilité internationale se présente sous deux formes en droit international public général, soit la responsabilité des États pour les activités non interdites par le droit international (ou la responsabilité objective), soit celle découlant d’un fait internationalement illicite. Cette dernière comporte encore deux subdivisions : celle ayant pour cause une « violation d’une obligation internationale » et celle pour une « violation grave d’obligation découlant de normes impératives du droit international général ». L’analyse des principes de droit environnemental international et du principe de la souveraineté démontre que le « dommage transfrontière médiat » pourrait, en théorie, être considéré comme un fait internationalement illicite permettant donc la responsabilisation d’un État. / The interdependence of the environment has highlighted the need for the international community to find mechanisms that are able to work beyond national borders and protect the natural assets of common interest. Given the inefficiency of the concept of common heritage of mankind for the protection of the natural assets subject to the sovereignty of a State, this study provides an analysis of the application of international responsibility to mediate transboundary harm (e.g. the environmental harm taking place in State’s territory that causes a loss to the planetary natural heritage) as a mechanism that can overcome borders and protect the environment. There are two types of international responsibility in general public international law. The first one consists of the State responsibility for activities not prohibited by international law; and the second one deals with the origin of an internationally wrongful act, which, in turn, has two subdivisions: one due to "violation of an international obligation" and another caused by "serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law." The analysis of the principles of international environmental law and the principle of sovereignty demonstrate that “mediate transboundary harm” could in theory be considered an internationally wrongful act, therefore allowing the accountability of a state.

Environmental justice, a new but rapidly developing concept in international environmental law, arose in the United States of America during the Environmental Justice Movement of the late 1970s and 1980s. It starkly highlighted injustices faced by people of colour and low-income communities as regards racially skewed environmental legal protection and allocation of environmental risks. The movement radically changed the meaning of ‘environment’ from its conventional green overtones to include issues of social justice at the core of environmental thinking. I critically examine the concept of environmental justice in the Kenyan context by highlighting the injustices, and the formulation and application of laws and policies that significantly impact on environmental regulation and equitable distribution of social services. / Private Law / LL. M.

Diante da complexidade da problemática ambiental, emergiu a necessidade de atuação do direito ambiental internacional, através da criação de um compilado de normas imperativas, capazes de efetivar a tutela e proteção do meio ambiente, limitando a atuação do Poder Público e dos particulares. Contudo, o direito ambiental internacional precisou recorrer não só às normatizações hard law, que são as normas burocráticas e obrigatórias, mas também as normatizações soft law, as quais conseguem ser modificadas de forma simplificada ou complementadas posteriormente, consideradas um direito flexível e capaz de acompanhar as mudanças e necessidades ecológicas. No Brasil, para que haja validade dos tratados e das convenções internacionais pactuados, é necessário o referendo da ordem constitucional brasileira, haja vista que é essa ordem que dispõe sobre a admissibilidade da ordem internacional no direito interno. No direito brasileiro, a Emenda Constitucional 45, de 2004, inseriu o § 3º do art. 5º, não pacificando o entendimento hierárquico das normas internacionais em matéria de direitos humanos, aqui incluído o direito ambiental. Tal situação também não se encontra solucionada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, órgão competente para julgar os conflitos decorrentes do direito interno e do direito internacional, podendo-se apenas considerar por uma votação, da quase maioria, pela supralegalidade da norma internacional internalizada no ordenamento brasileiro. Ainda, os tratados pactuados em âmbito do Mercosul não possuem nenhum privilégio para adentrar no ordenamento brasileiro, bem como não há uniformização das legislações ambientais nos países membros, tampouco, um tribunal capaz de fiscalizar e sancionar os Estados não cumpridores, o que dificulta a efetividade de suas normas. / Submitted by Marcelo Teixeira (mvteixeira@ucs.br) on 2014-06-05T16:22:50Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Andiara Flores.pdf: 1361562 bytes, checksum: f77f9b702a776ee84e270b577446cbaa (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-05T16:22:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Andiara Flores.pdf: 1361562 bytes, checksum: f77f9b702a776ee84e270b577446cbaa (MD5) / Given the complexity of environmental issues, there emerged the need for cooperation of international environmental law through the creation of mandatory rules compiled, capable of effecting the guardianship and protection of the environment by limiting the actions of the government and individuals. However, the international environmental law needed to appeal not only to hard law norms, which are the bureaucratic rules and compulsory, but also the soft law norms, which can be modified in a simplified form or complemented later considered a right flexible and able to follow changes and ecological needs. In Brazil, there is validity to treaties and international conventions agreed upon, it s necessary the Brazilian constitutional referendum, given that it is this order that provides for the admissibility of the international order in the law. Under Brazilian law, Constitutional Amendment 45, 2004, entered the § 3 of art. 5, do not pacify the hierarchical understanding of international standards on human rights, environmental law included here. This situation has also not been resolved by the Supreme Federal Court, a court competent to judge disputes arising from domestic law and international law, can only be considered for a vote, almost the majority of the international standard for supra-legal internalized in the Brazilian legal system. Still, the treaties agreed upon within the framework of Southern Common Market (Mercosul) have no privilege to enter into the Brazilian legal system, and there is no standardization of environmental laws in member countries, nor a court able to monitor and sanction the non-compliant States, which hinders the effectiveness of its standards.

Diante da complexidade da problemática ambiental, emergiu a necessidade de atuação do direito ambiental internacional, através da criação de um compilado de normas imperativas, capazes de efetivar a tutela e proteção do meio ambiente, limitando a atuação do Poder Público e dos particulares. Contudo, o direito ambiental internacional precisou recorrer não só às normatizações hard law, que são as normas burocráticas e obrigatórias, mas também as normatizações soft law, as quais conseguem ser modificadas de forma simplificada ou complementadas posteriormente, consideradas um direito flexível e capaz de acompanhar as mudanças e necessidades ecológicas. No Brasil, para que haja validade dos tratados e das convenções internacionais pactuados, é necessário o referendo da ordem constitucional brasileira, haja vista que é essa ordem que dispõe sobre a admissibilidade da ordem internacional no direito interno. No direito brasileiro, a Emenda Constitucional 45, de 2004, inseriu o § 3º do art. 5º, não pacificando o entendimento hierárquico das normas internacionais em matéria de direitos humanos, aqui incluído o direito ambiental. Tal situação também não se encontra solucionada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, órgão competente para julgar os conflitos decorrentes do direito interno e do direito internacional, podendo-se apenas considerar por uma votação, da quase maioria, pela supralegalidade da norma internacional internalizada no ordenamento brasileiro. Ainda, os tratados pactuados em âmbito do Mercosul não possuem nenhum privilégio para adentrar no ordenamento brasileiro, bem como não há uniformização das legislações ambientais nos países membros, tampouco, um tribunal capaz de fiscalizar e sancionar os Estados não cumpridores, o que dificulta a efetividade de suas normas. / Given the complexity of environmental issues, there emerged the need for cooperation of international environmental law through the creation of mandatory rules compiled, capable of effecting the guardianship and protection of the environment by limiting the actions of the government and individuals. However, the international environmental law needed to appeal not only to hard law norms, which are the bureaucratic rules and compulsory, but also the soft law norms, which can be modified in a simplified form or complemented later considered a right flexible and able to follow changes and ecological needs. In Brazil, there is validity to treaties and international conventions agreed upon, it s necessary the Brazilian constitutional referendum, given that it is this order that provides for the admissibility of the international order in the law. Under Brazilian law, Constitutional Amendment 45, 2004, entered the § 3 of art. 5, do not pacify the hierarchical understanding of international standards on human rights, environmental law included here. This situation has also not been resolved by the Supreme Federal Court, a court competent to judge disputes arising from domestic law and international law, can only be considered for a vote, almost the majority of the international standard for supra-legal internalized in the Brazilian legal system. Still, the treaties agreed upon within the framework of Southern Common Market (Mercosul) have no privilege to enter into the Brazilian legal system, and there is no standardization of environmental laws in member countries, nor a court able to monitor and sanction the non-compliant States, which hinders the effectiveness of its standards.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:33:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Heyd Fernandes Mas.pdf: 1079752 bytes, checksum: 82eab0a040cdf6cd44d66e0397301819 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-08-29 / Droughts, floods, severe storms, melting ice caps and consequent rise in sea level are some of the consequences of climate change. Concerning the human side of the climate change, some experts estimate that 200 million to 250 million people will be forced off their land by mid-century and the European Union itself has already established that migration pressure will increase substantially due to this issue. Considering this scenario, it becomes urgent that the rights of thousands of individuals and groups of people displaced by the climate change be recognized. Nowadays, there is no framework convention able to provide protection and assistance for those affected populations. In fact, this new category of climate or environmental misallocated persons, refugees or migrants seems to be problematic and controversial. Two different options are presented as a viable legal solution for this impasse: the first one would be to consider them as a type of refugee in this sense the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees should be reviewed; the second one points to the direction of a negotiation of a new convention, and therefore a terminological definition based on the human rights law or specifically on the climate change by enhancing the international legal mechanisms for the construction of guiding principles to deal with this new category of misallocated people. This discussion, which is blended with the need of deepening knowledge on the matter of climate and international environmental law, is intrinsically related to the issues of human rights and citizenship, expressed, in a wider range global one where it could be named the matter of global citizenship, as consequence of solidarity among all peoples. Even though there are still possible contradictions between the affirmation of human rights and the classical concept of citizenship, the existence of global matters as the climate change must lead to the affirmation of solidarity among all people. / Secas, inundações, tempestades, derretimento das calotas polares e consequente elevação do nível do mar são alguns dos efeitos das alterações climáticas. Em relação à face humana da mudança climática, especialistas da União Europeia estimam que de 200 a 250 milhões de pessoas serão forçadas a deixar suas terras em meados do século e que a pressão migratória irá aumentar substancialmente em função dessa problemática. Diante desta realidade, torna-se urgente que os direitos de milhares de indivíduos e grupos de pessoas que fazem parte dessas populações afetadas sejam reconhecidos. Atualmente, não existe convenção-quadro que possa oferecer proteção e assistência a tais grupos ou indivíduos. Inclusive, o fato é que esta nova categoria de deslocados, ecomigrantes, refugiados ambientais ou refugiados do clima apresenta-se como problemática e controversa. Duas possibilidades bastante distintas se apresentam como solução jurídica a esse impasse: a primeira seria considerá-los como uma espécie de refugiados - neste sentido, a Convenção de 1951, relativa ao Estatuto dos Refugiados, deveria ser revista; a segunda solução aponta para negociação de uma nova convenção e, portanto, uma adequação terminológica a partir do prisma dos direitos humanos ou especificamente da mudança climática por meio do aprimoramento dos mecanismos jurídicos internacionais existentes para construção de princípios de orientação para lidar com esta nova categoria de pessoas deslocadas. Essa discussão, permeada pela necessidade de aprofundamento de conhecimento sobre a questão do clima e do direito ambiental internacional, relaciona-se intrinsicamente com a problemática dos direitos humanos e cidadania, expressados em um alcance mais amplo que o usual âmbito global onde se destaca o tema da cidadania global, decorrente da solidariedade entre os povos. Ainda que possam existir contradições entre a afirmação dos direitos humanos e o clássico conceito de cidadania, a existência de problemas globais, tal como a mudança do clima, deve conduzir a afirmação da solidariedade entre povos.

No description available.